Rusty Shackleford has turned his attention (and his skills) from bringing down jihadist websites to investigate the origin of the Palin smears;
Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.
Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.
It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign.
It’s a long and detailed post. Don’t be surprised to see this story break through to the mainstream.
No, OMMAG, not so new đ – merely celebrating the general absence of unproductive “leftard”-ing and epithet-slinging in this particular thread, and the elevated level of discourse that leaving that kind of thought-free name-calling aside creates.
the palin connexion widens:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Conservative_commentator_Bill_O%27Reilly%27s_website_hacked
of special note to assistant blog monitor vitruvius: credibility looks high on this one. one cannot summarily dismiss ‘oh that’s just wikileak fiction’ every time.
like all worthy scientific/journalistic/historical/etc investigation one needs to verify the source, but it helps when the sign posts are pointing the correct direction.
“…Remember all those smarmy posts Kate used to write ridiculing people who said the economy was bad? ‘Recession watch’ or aomething like that?…”
Said Real,
Well Kate is still right, it is not so much the economy that is bad as the Democrats who caused the present problems.
Maybe you should read this article?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/21/baracks-wall-street-problem-is-now-americas/
Here is an excerpt,
Letâs start with the numbers. Why is a first term Senator pulling down almost $300,000 a year from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Countrywide Financial, and Washington Mutual? He has not even completed his fourth year in the Senate and received a total of $1,093,329.00 from these eight companies and their employees. (all data from OpenSecrets.org). John McCainâs numbers, according to OpenSecrets.org for the period 1990-2008 (i.e., 18 years worth of data) only collected $549,584.00. In other words, Barack is receiving $273,582.25 (and 2008 is not over) per year while McCain raised a paltry $30,532.44.
Want another shocker? Barack Obama has received more from one sourceâGoldman Sachs $542,252.00âthan McCain has from all of the companies combined. Who the hell is more beholden to lobbyists? And why does a junior Senator from Illinois rate this kind of dough?
… … …
The day there is a crash and Americans have to stand in line all day to get a loaf of bread, I’ll admit I was wrong ( but I can not speak for Kate).
Until then just be carefull what you wish for because if you get it, and the USA has a major crash, Canada will crash too because the USA buys 80 % of everything we produce here in Canada.
I believe the series is “Seven Year US Recession Watch Remains On High Alert” for a reason. I’m not arguing that a recession isn’t possible or even probable, given the cyclical nature of economies. The point of the series is to point out the steady drumbeat of negativity on the US economy, when by any reasonable measure, things were going pretty well – or at least as well as they did during the Clinton admin, which continues to recieve uncritical acclaim these many years later.
Let’s look forward to a conservative majority so that the CBC can be purged starting with Neil Macdonald and Heather Mallick.
This guy is starting to look like the devil. Read my post in the next link up. This has passed from skulldugery into creepy.
It was the Clinton pervs and crooks that changed the stock option time line for selling free shares, from I think 6 monthes from 2 years. It was horny Willie who was diddling a Monica instead of giving the order to vapourize that murderer in the cave. On and on the liberals go with their destruction here and everywhere they are allowed to ply their perverted trade!
” thought-free name-calling ”
Sorry, but the “leftard” name comes from personal observation as well as controlled experimentation by professional psychologists.
Hence the term “leftard”. I think we may need to add the term “presstard” as well.
Haidt is a confessed liberal who took years to come to these realizations, and only was able to do so due to his training in antrhopology.
Of course Haidt has also summarized the likely leftard response “Reject first! Ask rhetorical questions later!”
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/
The radical greens will be afainst her becuase she is from ALASKA and they openly resent these green jackasses trying to force their crap on them SCREW THE GREENS
So she only hosted the Independent Party as mayor. I seeeeeee.
So if I were to marry a member of Hammas, and welcome a Hammas convention to the town of which I’m a mayor, this means I in no way support that organization?
Logic meet SDA. SDA meet logic. Try not to kill each other.
Tim ~ No disagreement with the substance of your post.
My sole point was that a civilized and respectful mode of discourse communicates a message more effectively, and that the sweet reason and manifest truth of the general perspective that’s represented at SDA shines forth all the more brightly for being unobscured by the tone-lowering flinging of schoolyard taunts.
The reason that most left-leaning blogs are so off-putting and dismissible is that they’re toxic hothouses of knee-jerk ad hominem attacks and puerile name-calling, and it’s almost impossible to extract the real substance or a useful understanding of the intended message from of the general seething angry-mob foaminess and the shrill, rabid, unreasoning, pile-on tone. That’s why it saddens me to see that kind of expression also taking place at SDA, to the extent that it does – it diminishes and detracts from the real message, and from the sense and value of the perspective that’s represented here.
Two opposing angry mobs shouting slogans and epithets and waving pitchforks at each other aren’t ever going to get any problems solved – but there may be reasonable paths forward for all of us to be found in honest, respectful communication and discussion. We can’t control how others choose to comport themselves, but we can choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
SDA is widely monitored and often quoted in the MSM, and it seems to me that it is incumbent upon those who express themselves here to be conscious of that scrutiny. If a mindful, across-the-board effort was made to leave aside derisive labels for those who have different beliefs, any post from any thread could be referenced at any time and reflect only creditably and positively on the thoughtful, decent approach taken by those of a conservative tendency.
In short, there are more elegant and productive ways of expressing your negative reaction to ideas that you disagree with than labeling the holder of those ideas a “leftard”. It’s insulting, off-point, and leads to “Am not!/Are too!” rather than intelligent discussion, consensus-building, and problem-solving.
Surely we can – and should – aspire to a higher standard of expression, one that transcends the obscuring and lowering effect of schoolyard labelling on clarity and force of argument.
We’re no better than the leftards if we don’t.
My only point is that the term “leftard” is not “thought free”, it expresses a reality. The reality is that two way discussion with a leftie is a complete waste of time, for the aforementioned reasons.
For example, we could take up John’s astroturf post, and try to engage him in honest discussion. You go ahead and try. We both know what the result will be.
I completely hear and agree with what you’re saying, and your point is undeniably legitimate, and well-stated to boot; my concern is more with form.
The manifest intellectual limitations of such unfortunates do not absolve us of the responsibility to, nonetheless, conduct our own expositions with dignity, and to aspire to a higher standard of discourse than those with whom there is no honest discussion to be had because they’re foaming moonbats. Otherwise, we end up sounding like foaming moonbats ourselves, if you see what I’m saying.
There’s a lot more mileage and enjoyment, most particularly with an interlocutor with whom no meaningful or productive interchange is possible, in wielding the double-edged sword British courtesy and creatively slighting use of language.
There’s little sting in “he’s a howling leftard”, but “I fear that my esteemed opponent is a sadly misguided and perhaps synaptically challenged naif” is actually likely to perceptibly increase the oral frothing.
If nothing is left to us but to condescend, that is to say, let us do it with style. We can do so much better than “leftard” – and it’s double-plus fun because the implied superiority and whiff of elitism really lights up their underclass-connection-leveraging monkey brains.
I completely hear and agree with what you’re saying, and your point is undeniably legitimate, and well-stated to boot; my concern is more with form.
The manifest intellectual limitations of such unfortunates do not absolve us of the responsibility to, nonetheless, conduct our own expositions with dignity, and to aspire to a higher standard of discourse than those with whom there is no honest discussion to be had because they’re foaming moonbats. Otherwise, we end up sounding like foaming moonbats ourselves, if you see what I’m saying.
There’s a lot more mileage and enjoyment, most particularly with an interlocutor with whom no meaningful or productive interchange is possible, in wielding the double-edged sword British courtesy and creatively slighting use of language.
There’s little sting in “he’s a howling leftard”, but “I fear that my esteemed opponent is a sadly misguided and perhaps synaptically challenged naif” is actually likely to perceptibly increase the oral frothing.
If nothing is left to us but to condescend, that is to say, let us do it with style. “Leftard” is “thought-free” only to the extent that we can do so much better than to employ this somewhat shopworn label to express our disdain – and doing better is double-plus fun because the implied superiority and whiff of ivory-tower elitism really lights up their underclass-connection-leveraging monkey brains.
Posted by new : this woman has so many controversy in her speech
WHO is she really?
A person of your own style.
Palinanity Jane explains the bailout —
PALIN: Thatâs why I say I, like every American Iâm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, itâs got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade â we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. Weâve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.