Yes. It's being reported, and for good reason. Apparently McCain's supporters only want to comment on posts that stem from rumor and inuendo. lol. Here is some real meat a potato news, and nothing. lol.
Apparently McCain's supporters only want to comment on posts that stem from rumor and inuendo.
That's not entirely true, you know. I can see where you might have made that kind of mistake, but I feel I have to set the record straight WHENEVER I see someone saying something (even innocently) that's just not true.
McCain's supporters only want to comment on posts that stem from rumor and innuendo WHEN IT CONCERNS OBAMA. If there's a post which reflects negatively on McCain, though, just you watch: they will absolutely INSIST that you provide proof which absolutely CANNOT be gainsaid, re-interpreted, or otherwise adjusted to make things better for McCain, before they will admit, grudgingly, that while THIS instance MAY be true....it of course proves nothing at all in the larger sense of things, in which McCain has a long and distinguished track record of zzzzzzzz.....
Oops. Just reciting the McCainiac boilerplate put me to sleep. ;o)
I have to admit I wasn't aware of this. It's interesting to see how McCain supporters are ignoring it...so far. It must be hard to admit, McCain's involvement with someone with a questionable history. Not that he doesn't know other questionable characters. Liddy just had a fund raiser for him.
Sorry, doesn't cut much mustard, even with some of your fellow conservatarians: ask alicia what she thinks of HuffPo, for example. But, that aside, the larger point with it is whether you can disprove the actual contents of the article? Is Timmons NOT a former lobbyist for Saddam, either by contract or de-facto? Are the facts alleged in the article false? If so, show evidence. Or, perhaps, is Timmons not the man recently named by Senator John McCain to head up his "transition team" (assuming he is elected)? Again, if you have evidence to support that, show it! Complaining that the outlet in which it was reported is "biased" is quite weak as a refutation - in fact, it is not a refutation at all, merely an attempt to get weak-minded or easily-swayed people to believe that the story is false based upon nothing more than where it was printed or initially run.
If you believe that HuffPo is biased, then by all means, I urge you to treat the story with skepticism. But that skepticism should lead you to check into independent reports which can confirm or deny whether it's true. If your suspicions are correct and the story is false, then certainly, that would be yet one more reason to view stories found in HuffPo even MORE skeptically next time. If, on the other hand, you find that the allegations are in fact correct, well....I guess you'll just have to suck it up and admit that a hated "lefty" outlet got it right.
Pages
That's not entirely true, you know. I can see where you might have made that kind of mistake, but I feel I have to set the record straight WHENEVER I see someone saying something (even innocently) that's just not true.
McCain's supporters only want to comment on posts that stem from rumor and innuendo WHEN IT CONCERNS OBAMA. If there's a post which reflects negatively on McCain, though, just you watch: they will absolutely INSIST that you provide proof which absolutely CANNOT be gainsaid, re-interpreted, or otherwise adjusted to make things better for McCain, before they will admit, grudgingly, that while THIS instance MAY be true....it of course proves nothing at all in the larger sense of things, in which McCain has a long and distinguished track record of zzzzzzzz.....
Oops. Just reciting the McCainiac boilerplate put me to sleep. ;o)
Rose
((((
Sorry, doesn't cut much mustard, even with some of your fellow conservatarians: ask alicia what she thinks of HuffPo, for example. But, that aside, the larger point with it is whether you can disprove the actual contents of the article? Is Timmons NOT a former lobbyist for Saddam, either by contract or de-facto? Are the facts alleged in the article false? If so, show evidence. Or, perhaps, is Timmons not the man recently named by Senator John McCain to head up his "transition team" (assuming he is elected)? Again, if you have evidence to support that, show it! Complaining that the outlet in which it was reported is "biased" is quite weak as a refutation - in fact, it is not a refutation at all, merely an attempt to get weak-minded or easily-swayed people to believe that the story is false based upon nothing more than where it was printed or initially run.
If you believe that HuffPo is biased, then by all means, I urge you to treat the story with skepticism. But that skepticism should lead you to check into independent reports which can confirm or deny whether it's true. If your suspicions are correct and the story is false, then certainly, that would be yet one more reason to view stories found in HuffPo even MORE skeptically next time. If, on the other hand, you find that the allegations are in fact correct, well....I guess you'll just have to suck it up and admit that a hated "lefty" outlet got it right.
((((I am sure he is a nice little
Oh, my GOODNESS! He should be in jail! Just like both Obama and McCain!
Right?
Pages