If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   WaPo fact checker gives three "Pinocchios" to the doctored Benghazi emails claim. Proving once and for all that we cannot trust a single soul within a 50 mile radius of D.C   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 423
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10905 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



423 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 11:18:55 AM
"The burden of proof lies with the accuser"

Except for Republicans, they can accuse oh fark it I'm bored with this.
 
2013-05-22 11:19:03 AM
Who gives a shiat?
Just a few more political pawns got themselves killed overseas.
if this hadn't been a scandal, we would've forgotten them by now.
That's how we work, as the new breed of proud american
we cheer for our new leader
nothing else matters
 
2013-05-22 11:19:20 AM
Hmm, It's funny how paraphrasing something makes it longer and changes the general idea of it.

Example:

email "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

paraphrase "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

so paraphrasing makes it more specific by adding "talking points" "state department" and "FBI"?

example 2:

email "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."


paraphrase "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

so paraphrasing again adds specifics such as al-Qaeda that were not present in the original email.

This could have easily been called the other way. I think TPM is trying to get some website hits.
 
2013-05-22 11:19:31 AM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?


No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.
 
2013-05-22 11:20:21 AM

PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?


How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!

Plus the state department had money to put in electric car charging stations in italy, so I am guessing that they had money for the essential security.  (or Hillary ran the state department incompetently.)
 
2013-05-22 11:21:53 AM

Phinn: DirkValentine: I'm having a hard time understanding what the point you are trying to make is. Is it that 0Bummer knew when and why the attacks where taking place, at the exact time they were taking place, and ignored it?

What the fark are you on about, man?

I like to get the facts before I start making points.


What does it matter when Obama knew?  That wouldn't have saved their lives.  That much has been shown in testimonies before congress.

You are trying to obfuscate reality and steer the conversation towards blaming Obama...somehow.
 
2013-05-22 11:22:20 AM
Missing a comma, an apostrophe or typoing angles into angels are "transcription errors". Changing words into different words or altering entire sentences requires more deliberate action.
 
2013-05-22 11:23:12 AM

factoryconnection: vygramul: How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

Do serious GOP candidates even bother running for District offices?  Like, here in SC, we have "Democrats" that run against the GOP, but most of them are just nutcases with the occasional Blue-dog that still loses after being thrashed all over as a "commie pinko liberal scumbag Pelosi lapdog," like EC Busch was against Mark Sanford recently.


The Post does not limit itself to DC. Think VA. Moran, Connelly, Kaine, Deeds... pick a state-wide or national office in VA, and find me the last time the Post endorsed a Republican, then compare it to the list of Democrats, some of whom, like Moran, could never be accused of being a conservative Democrat.
 
2013-05-22 11:24:02 AM

Aarontology: factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.

That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.


Or fading the heat for the same purposes.
 
2013-05-22 11:24:30 AM

Aarontology: factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.

That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.


Also if they were concerned with proper security of embassies and the like, wouldn't they be investigating at least all the deadly attacks in recent years - Istanbul, Sana'a, Belgrade, Damascus, Tashkent, Karachi, Dar Es Salaam, Nairobi, etc., and even better all the non-deadly ones, to see what lessons can be learned and what improvements could be made to security. Hell, really it would make sense to broadly investigate the events of all attacks on embassies, or maybe just western nations, because it is not as if the attackers are likely to use one set of tactics, weapons and methods against the US and a completely different set for the UK, France, Germany, etc.
 
2013-05-22 11:25:19 AM

jayphat: ikanreed: 3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.

You mean like Mitt Romney paying taxes? I mean, someone accused him of it. Nevernind they had no proof. It was his responsibility to prove otherwise.


If you were going to purport to "fact check" that statement, you'd better damn well have some evidence one way or another, or you are contributing less than nothing.  Anyone is capable of having an opinion, intuition, or guess; a fact checker is a researcher.  This guy is pretty clearly a partisan shill presenting opinion as fact.  If someone did the same thing for Reid's statement, they'd also be a partisan shill.
 
2013-05-22 11:25:44 AM

bluefox3681: How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!

Plus the state department had money


Cognitive dissonance, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2013-05-22 11:28:48 AM

advex101: 3 pinochios sounds like it should be a lie.  What i read in the article sounds like both sides were just spinning.  Spinning is not lying.  At least not in Washington.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/about-the-fact -c hecker/2011/12/05/gIQAa0FBYO_blog.html#pinocchio

1: Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
2: Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
3: Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.
4: Whoppers
 
2013-05-22 11:30:14 AM

ShadowKamui: advex101: 3 pinochios sounds like it should be a lie.  What i read in the article sounds like both sides were just spinning.  Spinning is not lying.  At least not in Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/about-the-fact -c hecker/2011/12/05/gIQAa0FBYO_blog.html#pinocchio

1: Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
2: Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
3: Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.
4: Whoppers


Jeez, even his rating system equivocates and prevaricates.
 
2013-05-22 11:32:17 AM

skozlaw: jayphat: This is a legitimate question

Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.


You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.

I understand that you don't know the answer. I'm getting the impression that no one outside of Obama and a few insiders knows. I was genuinely curious if that information had been released in the last week or so.

I question liars for a living. I don't especially like my job, but it's my specialty -- to investigate frauds, faulty and dishonest accounting practices, and various forms of malpractice.

It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag. Sometimes it's nothing, but when you compound that initial vacillation with a rage-burst of hostility ("What difference at this point DOES IT MAKE?"), or a strenuous effort to change the subject ("The real issue here is reforming the system"), then even more red flags go up.

It's especially odd here because a President's movements are always tracked. The question itself is answerable, by someone who wants to answer it.
 
2013-05-22 11:33:11 AM
"Pinocchios"

Can we stop being adult infants from now on?
 
2013-05-22 11:35:12 AM

skozlaw: vygramul: How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing?

I'm not the one who held up an exceptional example and then argued that it wasn't exceptional circumstances that led to it.


You're holding up NO examples.

Your ridiculous commentary has all the hallmarks of the typically shallow and meaningless conservative "thought" processes. You want to hold up an exception as evidence of your perfectly mundane claim of political bis. It never occurs to you that if you're going to hold up an exception that maybe there is an exceptional reason it occured. Like maybe one candidate was so exceptionally bad that they took the exceptional step of breaking long-standing tradition of not endorsing a candidate to endorse his opponent.

But, no. That can't be it. It's just not plausible that a conservative candidate could be completely and utterly terrible for president, right? The one who lost by a substantial margin despite absolutely staggering amounts of spending on him. It's not that he was an atrocious candidate, no, it's because of "liberals".

It's just like the fact-checkers during the cycle. It's not that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan lied, oh, god no, that can't be. It must be because of liberals! He didn't lie, the liberal fact-checkers just have a different opinion! It's not that they didn't have any actual plans to show anybody, it's that any outlet that reported that fact or ran an editorial criticizing their lack of concrete plans is liberal!

Liberals! Liberals! The problem is always Emmanuel Goldstein!


You obviously haven't followed my posts on Fark, or you'd feel like a goddamn idiot for saying what you just said.

Why don't you provide an example or twelve of Republican endorsements? I can think of one: Cook for Fairfax Board of Supervisors, and their reasoning was that they wanted some opposition because if he lost, the GOP would have had exactly two seats. All the other BoS endorsements? Democrats. They're not liberal like Mother Jones or Common Dreams, but to describe them as right-leaning (much less right-wing) is engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Just how many examples do you want? How about a recent oped demanding MD not chicken out on banning assault weapons? How about taking Obama's side on Benghazi and calling out the GOP for concentrating on phony issues? Not enough? How about arguing for a carbon tax?

You'll be able to find some conservative positions, of course, but I'll beat you by a landslide.
 
2013-05-22 11:35:35 AM

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability
 
2013-05-22 11:36:49 AM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.


So it doesn't matter how many liberals they employ, Jennifer Rubin trumps them all?
 
2013-05-22 11:37:43 AM

Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.


Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.
 
2013-05-22 11:38:32 AM

Phil Moskowitz: "Pinocchios"

Can we stop being adult infants from now on?


Reminds me of something I heard a friend say to his misbehaving son the other day. "Think before you do that! You already have 3 naughties!"
 
2013-05-22 11:38:52 AM

SixPaperJoint: Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability


Thanks for the article, but I was more interested in what fact witnesses have said, not hypotheticals and speculation from retired experts.
 
2013-05-22 11:39:21 AM

vygramul: FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Not even close.

I dont know where the hell people get this unless they're using the conservative strategy of declaring someone impure and therefore their polar opposite because of a couple of statements inconsistent with their ideology.



The newspaper's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.
 
2013-05-22 11:41:33 AM

vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?


How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?
 
2013-05-22 11:41:49 AM

factoryconnection: James!: That article doesn't say what you think it says. He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.

Exactly.  The LSM is proving its cred while detracting from the Obama Administration's defense on this matter.

unlikely: All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.

Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.


Welcome to the last 8 months.
 
2013-05-22 11:41:58 AM

mrshowrules: For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.


How can Obama be ranked?  He hasn't even finished.  Who knows what will happen?

Just throwing this out there - but before 9/11 no one had a problem with Bush.  He was a domestic president not interested in foreign affairs.  I think that history will look at him more as a man who got shafted by circumstance than OMGWTFTHEDEVILPRESIDENT

But how can Obama be ranked ANYWHERE.  We don't know if Obamacare will work or fail, we haven't seen the long lasting effects of his policys (or lack there of)... I mean really?  Ranked!?
 
2013-05-22 11:42:01 AM

ikanreed: jayphat: ikanreed: 3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.

You mean like Mitt Romney paying taxes? I mean, someone accused him of it. Nevernind they had no proof. It was his responsibility to prove otherwise.

If you were going to purport to "fact check" that statement, you'd better damn well have some evidence one way or another, or you are contributing less than nothing.  Anyone is capable of having an opinion, intuition, or guess; a fact checker is a researcher.  This guy is pretty clearly a partisan shill presenting opinion as fact.  If someone did the same thing for Reid's statement, they'd also be a partisan shill.


You can tell fact checking sites and poll aggregators really hurt the GOP in the last few years, because they had to start creating their own "unskewed" versions, both as a new way to get their propaganda out there in a new format, plus it tends to reduce trust in all fact checkers and poll aggregators with the people that don't pay enough attention to know the good from the bad or how to tell the difference.
 
2013-05-22 11:42:16 AM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Point of "fact", it is not.
 
2013-05-22 11:42:46 AM

vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.


You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.
 
2013-05-22 11:44:01 AM
Glenn Kessler is a moron. That is all.
 
2013-05-22 11:44:15 AM

qorkfiend: How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?


As someone who lives in DC, I will tell you this:

The Washington Post is neither.  They have columnist who are right wing, and they have columnists who are left wing.  And each side points to the other and says, OMG SCUM.

But if you read it cover to cover, you'd get a fairly balanced view.  Just sayin.
 
2013-05-22 11:45:19 AM
How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?
 
2013-05-22 11:45:22 AM

skilbride: mrshowrules: For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.

How can Obama be ranked?  He hasn't even finished.  Who knows what will happen?

Just throwing this out there - but before 9/11 no one had a problem with Bush.  He was a domestic president not interested in foreign affairs.  I think that history will look at him more as a man who got shafted by circumstance than OMGWTFTHEDEVILPRESIDENT

But how can Obama be ranked ANYWHERE.  We don't know if Obamacare will work or fail, we haven't seen the long lasting effects of his policys (or lack there of)... I mean really?  Ranked!?


Well it's pretty simple, really.  Of all the terrible things Bush did, foremost would be starting two unfunded wars, one of which was illegal.  Obama has ended one and is trying to end the other, as he said he would.  Oh yeah, and bin Laden was killed on his watch.  That already makes him better than Bush.  Now, if he declares war on Lichtenstein tomorrow and we invade Europe, I may change my mind but let's go ahead and call that exceedingly unlikely.
 
2013-05-22 11:47:07 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.


I am sure Farkers will think that is awesome. If it happened under Bush, Bush would be impeached tomorrow.

Can you imagine the friggin uproar if the IRS targeted ACORN and all the Obama organizations?
 
2013-05-22 11:47:15 AM

FlashHarry: vygramul: FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Not even close.

I dont know where the hell people get this unless they're using the conservative strategy of declaring someone impure and therefore their polar opposite because of a couple of statements inconsistent with their ideology.


The newspaper's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.


Did you keep reading Wikipedia? They quote this article in the Post, too.

And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman. They don't even go for moderately conservative economists like Greg Mankiw.
 
2013-05-22 11:47:30 AM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.

So it doesn't matter how many liberals they employ, Jennifer Rubin trumps them all?


Yeah. A supposedly liberal newspaper would at least employ a conservative with fact-based opinions. WND would employ someone like Jennifer Rubin.
 
2013-05-22 11:47:49 AM

TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?


By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.
 
2013-05-22 11:48:07 AM
Article is lacking. If you're going to quote a dumb system, at least explain the dumb system

What is the maximum number of Pinocchios he gives out? Three? Five? Ten?
 
2013-05-22 11:48:15 AM

qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?


How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?
 
2013-05-22 11:48:47 AM

PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?


Voting the same as the Democrats, apparently, if you check the voting record. While you're at it, check the record and you will see that funds for embassy security were not specifically cut - it was the Administration's choice to make any cuts that were made.
 
2013-05-22 11:48:56 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.


Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.
 
2013-05-22 11:49:52 AM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


center-right, but yeah , pretty Much has been since Young Ms. Weymouth inherited it from the legendary mother and son duo of Kay and Donald Graham.  And the Wapo's "fact" checker clearly doesn;t understand his job.  you "can't "fact check" an opinion or someoneone's motives.   You also can;t say "well I place the burden of proof on this person and since they can;t prove this to my satisfaction I conclude they are lying"
 
2013-05-22 11:49:58 AM

TheOtherMisterP: Article is lacking. If you're going to quote a dumb system, at least explain the dumb system

What is the maximum number of Pinocchios he gives out? Three? Five? Ten?


It goes to eleven.
 
2013-05-22 11:50:02 AM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.

So it doesn't matter how many liberals they employ, Jennifer Rubin trumps them all?

Yeah. A supposedly liberal newspaper would at least employ a conservative with fact-based opinions. WND would employ someone like Jennifer Rubin.


Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?
 
2013-05-22 11:50:44 AM

Phinn: TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?

By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.


Usually, that results in getting a word wrong. It doesn't typically result in entire clauses being added.
 
2013-05-22 11:51:27 AM

vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?


As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?
 
2013-05-22 11:52:45 AM

Aarontology: factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.

That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.


Pretty much that. IF they gave a rats ass they would be more worried about making sure it never happens again.
 
2013-05-22 11:53:41 AM

vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?


good lord.  Listen to yourself.  WaPo isn't even close to a liberal newspaper.  Give it up.
 
2013-05-22 11:54:36 AM

netcentric: The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.


Can I use this comment for a paper I'm writing called "The Negative Effects of Sniffing Glue Habitually"?
 
2013-05-22 11:55:39 AM
You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report