Wow, that's a lot of smilies...Gaborn said:
I'm picturing this guy telling me that :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Wow, that's a lot of smilies...Gaborn said:
I'm picturing this guy telling me that :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
FoneBone said:You can't even point me to the thread where I said that supposedly memorable statement.
Also I recommend doing 15 seconds' worth of fact checking before you go on for paragraphs about Andrew Sullivan's failings.
I'd deny saying that ANY form of voter verification was bad, yes. :lolGaborn said:That's true of a lot of memorable statements with the way search is now. Are you really going to deny that discussion? REALLY?
Not according to most of the articles I can find. Of course, there are better reasons to hate Sullivan, like his years of right-wing cocksucking, backwards sexual politics, and endorsement of racism.Gaborn said:Ah yes, the old "lulz you're wrong"... without clarifying your position. I think I know what you're referring to though. Glass was hired by Sullivan before Sullivan left TNR but shortly thereafter his plagiarism was exposed. Of course if that is what you're referring to you might want to look a little closer. The combination of the two scandals were substantially viewed as a failure in vetting and oversight by Sullivan, he was careless.
FoneBone said:I'd deny saying that ANY form of voter verification was bad, yes. :lol
Doesn't mean that laws like this aren't fucking retarded.
adamsappel said:Gaborn, do you hold your esteemed Dr. Paul to the same standard as Kos, when Paul was publishing ghost-written racist screeds under his own name and masthead?
This is not even remotely plausible.Gaborn said:I don't think he knew about it when it was going on though because it doesn't fit with any of his other public writings or seeming personality.
The narrative in the newsletter postings are highly personal and specific to Ron Paul, and even if we believed that they were written by a ghostwriter, it would be hard to believe that Ron Paul and the ghostwriter had absolutely no contact. Furthermore, in order to accept Ron Paul's story, we would have to believe that none of the readers ever phoned in to complain or cancel their subscriptions. That no one on the staff ever notified Ron Paul of what was going on. That none of Ron Paul's friends or family members ever notified Ron Paul about what was going on. Out of over 7,000 readers, not one of them would have a direct line to Ron Paul.
Moreover, we would have to ignore the numerous news articles from 1996, when the story was brought to Ron Paul's attention by the popular media. The Ron Paul supporters can attempt to rationalize the time frame pre-1996, by pleading ignorance. And they can attempt to rationalize the time frame post-2001, when Ron Paul first began to deny the story. But how do the rationalize the time period from 1996-2001, when Ron Paul was aware of the situation, and still chose to defend the newsletter? Well... they can't.
get therapy :lol :lol :lolGaborn said:(though in fairness it was PROBABLY scorcho)
FoneBone said:This is not even remotely plausible.
It is not accepted by "pretty much" anyone who wasn't rhetorically sucking Ron Paul's cock during the entirety of his campaign, as "pretty much" all those people have triple-digit IQs, something sorely lacking among PaultardsGaborn said:Whether or not you think it's "plausible" that's pretty much been accepted by... well, frankly, just about everyone
Gaborn said:Whether or not you think it's "plausible" that's pretty much been accepted by... well, frankly, just about everyone, though I'm sure you can find some people who disagree :lol :lol
Gaborn said:Whether or not you think it's "plausible" that's pretty much been accepted by... well, frankly, just about everyone, though I'm sure you can find some people who disagree :lol :lol
edit: Fone - Therapy? Really? Wow, new low in personal attacks, wheee! I did find the exchange I was referring to in that thread you dug up, from post 225 onward the exchange I had with scorcho I found ridiculous. I apologize I thought it was you though. Anyway, I'm tired of being insulted by you, In fact, I'm just plain tired. Go ahead and continue with your snarkiness, I really have little interest in engaging in it with you at this point, I generally prefer more civil discussions than you provide.
edit: New post by you just confirms my decision. Good night to you!
I'll be generous and say that he might not be a racist, but was quite definitely knowingly pandering to racists (and fundamentalists, xenophobes, 9-11 truthers, and other such nutjobs.) Not really any better.OuterWorldVoice said:He's a racist. Or was a racist, and is magically cured.
FoneBone said:I'll be generous and say that he might not be a racist, but was quite definitely knowingly pandering to racists (and fundamentalists, xenophobes, 9-11 truthers, and other such nutjobs.) Not really any better.
Ron Paul ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York after Martin Luther King and suggested the following names instead: "Welfaria, Zooville, Rapetown, Dirtburg and Lazyopolis."
"Homosexuals were far better off when social pressures forced them to hide their activities"
Again, I'm only giving the best-case scenario, if a ghostwriter actually did do most of the writing (and I don't think it's implausible that Lew Rockwell did it).OuterWorldVoice said:
This is simply hysterical. The reasons are obvious enough about why you're excusing Paul, but for Kos:Gaborn said:Yes and no. Moulitsas was directly involved in the day to day runnings of DailyKos and he actively contracted with and paid for the results produced by R2K. Paul has said that he wasn't really involved in the news letter and he basically was careless with his name. Paul deserved ample criticism for that, I think it was a beyond terrible lapse in judgement on his part. I don't think he knew about it when it was going on though because it doesn't fit with any of his other public writings or seeming personality. So in that sense I suppose I give him a little more of a pass.
In both cases both deserve some criticism though, but I do think the level of involvement in each project to some degree influences how much blame I see each having with their respective scandals.
Seriously, I don't really care about polls, but seems to me the guy's done all he can. Non story, move on. This is how you own a problem right here, in my opinion of course. He's disavowed the work, thrown every poll ever done by them by the wayside, made all the data he can public and is suing them, this is the free market taking care of itself! How else was he to regulate it? Hire 3 pollsters and average them all? Hire a statistician to check all the work before hand, what the fuck has he hired those guys to do?GhaleonEB said:This is simply hysterical. The reasons are obvious enough about why you're excusing Paul, but for Kos:
R2K was a respected pollster with a long track record and dozens of media clients. He did his vetting, as you pointed out. And I'm still not sure what he should do that he has not done, but which you are demanding. Take responsibility? Done. Disavow the polls? Done. Disclose what he's found to the public? Done.
I believe you were making excuses about Ron Paul's newsletter. Carry on.
polyh3dron said:I'd rather believe Fox News's polls. They present the facts to the viewers and let them decide.
Well, streets that are named after MLK tend to be the shittiest, so he's not far off.:lolOuterWorldVoice said:
Oh, and to sum up my thoughts on this when I'm less bleary-eyed: Moulitsas has been 100% transparent on what he knew and when he knew it. Ron Paul never has.Gaborn said:Yes and no. Moulitsas was directly involved in the day to day runnings of DailyKos and he actively contracted with and paid for the results produced by R2K. Paul has said that he wasn't really involved in the news letter and he basically was careless with his name. Paul deserved ample criticism for that, I think it was a beyond terrible lapse in judgement on his part. I don't think he knew about it when it was going on though because it doesn't fit with any of his other public writings or seeming personality. So in that sense I suppose I give him a little more of a pass.
In both cases both deserve some criticism though, but I do think the level of involvement in each project to some degree influences how much blame I see each having with their respective scandals.
OuterWorldVoice said:
Link?Gaborn said:I believe you'll find the controversial period Paul didn't write them was a couple years, not the entire run of the publication.
FoneBone said:Link?
The tenor of Paul's newsletters changed over the years. The ones published between Paul's return to private life after three full terms in congress (1985) and his Libertarian presidential bid (1988) notably lack inflammatory racial or anti-gay comments. The letters published between Paul's first run for president and his return to Congress in 1996 are another storyreplete with claims that Martin Luther King "seduced underage girls and boys," that black protesters should gather "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house" rather than the Statue of Liberty, and that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."