Based on their track record, who’s willing to bet that this single sourced story about Sec. Clinton that everyone else in the world seems to have missed and is being trumpeted by the conservative blogs will turn out to be as untrue as everything else they push (the phony teleprompter story, the phony flag pin story, the phony birth certificate story, the phony Mena stories)?
Bueller? Bueller?
Oh come on. Catholic News Agency? As reputable as it gets.
I love how they put up an unflattering picture of the Secretary to bolster their belief that she is evil.
Arkansas Project Take 643673253
Anyone doubting the smear-worthiness of the article need note only the last paragraph, which begins:
“This evening Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, a noted eugenicist.”, which is about as close to a 100% pure Catholic smear as you can get…
I’ll counter with “The Catholic News Agency is against abortion and any form of non-natural birth control and is published at the discretion of Pope Benedict XVI, a noted Nazi.”
OW, I don’t see why you doubt the story. It’s a well-known fact that liberals of all stripes always say the most glaringly inappropriate thing in any situation to reveal their inner hatred for patriotism, Godliness, and conservative values.
And then, of course, they go raise money for abortions immediately afterward.
Tell us again, Oliver, how many sources did you have before you ran with that article about the Grand Conservative Conspiracy behind the Tea Party movement?
J.
Tell us again, Jay Tea, how many sources did you have before you ran with: “Obama compared his poor bowling to that of the mentally handicapped, and made fun of those suffering from hydrocephaly by referring to his dog as a “waterhead.””
… and just about 99.9% of the bullshit you type?
fafaroo, about as many as Oliver did… in a comment, not an article. And I admitted that I was wrong. I never played the “fake but accurate” card.
Maybe I should, though… it seems to be gaining in acceptability among your side.
J.
Maybe I should, though… it seems to be gaining in acceptability among your side.
Oh please. You and everyone else here knows that you are in no position to criticize anyone for having bad sources or, in fact, zero sources at all.
Hell, you’ve been wrong on things where the readily available sources were a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade) and the freaking US Constitution.
But you always seem to have an excuse for why being so woefully ill-informed is okay when you do it.
Rationalizing idiocy has been standard operating procedure for you for quite some time.
Shorter Jay: This one time Oliver quoted an error-filled article, which completely justifies my daily ignorance!!
Seriously Jay, we get it, it’s a lot easier to change the topic than admit your side has no concern about factual accuracy. This article is transparently crap, and only a fool would cite it as fact..
Seriously, Crusty, I was pointing out that neither side has a monopoly on this particular dumbass stunt.
I had no problem buying this story about Hillary Clinton, who fabricated a story about visiting Kosovo under sniper fire, who said with a straight face that she had once considered joining the Marine Corps in her youth, who said that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when he didn’t rise to prominence until years after she was born, who screwed up a “RESET” button for Russia…
Oh, and Crusty: the current Pope was enlisted in the Hitler Youth at a point where it was mandatory, and later deserted at a time when such an act was punishable by death — and that all happened before he turned 18.
I’ll stack Bennie The Sixteen’s moral courage and principles in this case up against, say, Robert Byrd, who CHOSE to join the Klan for political advantage, and left it later when it became a disadvantage.
J.
Seriously, Crusty, I was pointing out that neither side has a monopoly on this particular dumbass stunt.
And I was just pointing out that you are absolutely the last person who should be criticizing anyone for citing anything that turns out to be false or inaccurate.
You simply have no credibility.
fafaroo, I’ve admitted I screwed up the “waterhead” bit. I’d say that makes me a bit of an expert — I know that mistake from the inside.
Has Oliver ever acknowledged that his initial story fell apart? I did a quick check, and didn’t find any sign of it…
Oh, and Oliver, you’re a little late on the latest scheme: to give Sarah Palin the “Limbaugh Treatment.” Considering how that one worked out, with Limbaugh’s ratings apparently going up, I think Media Matters might be getting a fruit basket (or, maybe, some caribou meat) for your inevitable role in going after her next…
J.
ever acknowledged that his initial story fell apart?
Once again you confuse opinion with reporting.
Oh, and Oliver, you’re a little late on the latest scheme: to give Sarah Palin the “Limbaugh Treatment.”
Yes, clearly this “scheme” goes back to August of last year. We’re diabolical that way. But remember, we’re scared of the ignoramus moron.
Just want to make sure I understand here, Mr. Tea. Your reaction to a fishy story from the “Catholic News Service” about SecState Clinton is…”Robert Byrd!”
Jay Tea, you beautiful idiot. You think the “waterhead” thing is the only instance of you being lead astray by dubious sources? Dude. The instances are legion
Factual errors, links to morons twisting facts and misreading data, misquoted sources, unsourced bullshit that can’t be verified period, it goes on and on.
You either have a seriously selective memory or you’re brain damaged. Maybe both. By whatever means, you have an uncanny ability to construct and live in your own reality. This is, apparently, what keeps the last vestiages of your self-esteem from collapsing in on itself.
Jay Tea: Considering how that one worked out, with Limbaugh’s ratings apparently going up
I can’t remember the exact figures, but someone recently noted a poll showed something like the majority of people don’t even know who Limbaugh even is, and of those who did his favorables were not that different than his unfavorables.
I realize, from Rush’s view, ain’t no such thing as an unwanted listener (no such thing as bad publicity). But I’d be interested in seeing the results of a poll of new listeners and what their opinion of him is. What does it benefit the Repub party if their “leader” doubles his audience, but 90% of those who recently tuned in think he’s (and therefore they) are buffoons?
“…who said with a straight face that she once considered joining the Marine Corps in her youth…”
Has that claim ever proven to be a lie?
“…who said that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when he didn’t rise to prominence until years after she was born,…”
She might have been making a tongue-in-cheek comment when she said said and didn’t realize that people would take it seriously.
“…with Limbaugh’s ratings apparently going up,…”
Bigger audience, same asshole.
“…with Limbaugh’s ratings apparently going up,…”
“Apparently” in this case meaning the radio industry changing the way it does ratings using Personal People Meters which have shown wild swings in many markets versus the traditional radio diaries.
Jay, no one is doubting that either side has been wrong before, I’m merely pointing out that quoting an article without comment doesn’t exactly equal repeatedly making wildly inaccurate accusations. But you are once again avoiding the topic (or more accurately, creating your own topic which is, at best, loosely related to the conversation everyone else is having), which I think is a bit of a pattern for you. It’s as if you’re on a slow moving boat, casting a long line into the water just hoping to get a nibble…
daniel rotter: <I.She might have been making a tongue-in-cheek comment when she said said and didn’t realize that people would take it seriously.
You’re enabling. Sometimes the folks on your side of the aisle do stupid things. Why not acknowledge it? It doesn’t mean they aren’t overall way better than the other side.
“You’re enabling.”
So you know for a fact, Sean, that she wasn’t just joking?
daniel rotter: So you know for a fact, Sean, that she wasn’t just joking?
No, I don’t. But I haven’t seen anything anywhere from her on anyone in a position to know if she was to suggest she was. It’s merely something you’ve come up with out of whole cloth.
And so what if she was serious? Is the mere possibility that she was called out on a small lie so objectionable that you have to cobble up an excuse out of thin air?
Sometimes the folks on your side of the aisle do stupid things. Why not acknowledge it? It doesn’t mean they aren’t overall way better than the other side.
Sometimes the folks on your side of the aisle do stupid things.
Sean, this is the first time I think you’ve used that term, “your side.”
If you are in fact a Republican, I have to doff my hat to you, sir.
Someone who makes a cogent argument and remains relatively reasonable from the right.
Kudos.
Duros: If you are in fact a Republican, I have to doff my hat to you, sir.
While I’ve generally taken some care not to reveal any demographic info about myself when posting here I would think it fairly clear that I lean to the left. So I can clearly declare I’m not a Republican.
So it pains me when folks from the (generally) more rational supposedly reality-based side of the aisle stoop to tactics unworthy of them. Such as ignoring reality to blindly defending Dem politicians.