Name That Party: As Usual, Again-Indicted Former Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick Not ID'd As a Dem
It seems to be almost required by now that any indictment of Kwame Kilpatrick must be accompanied by two or more establishment media outlets reports that fail to inform readers that the former Detroit Mayor is a Democrat -- in fact, a Democrat who was singled out for copious praise during the early stages of Barack Obama's campaign for president.
In unbylined reports, CBS News in Detroit and the Associated Press took the "Hide That Party" helm this time around. Here are a few paragraphs from the CBS report:
Indictment Alleges City Corruption, Bribery, Fraud
The U.S. Attorney in Detroit Wednesday unloaded a laundry list of federal charges against former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, his father and three other city officials in an indictment the FBI says has been a long time coming.
“I think that these charges will bring forth and show to the citizens of this area the abuse of power by certain individuals, and certainly shed light on some of the activity that has been going on here for far too long,” Detroit FBI Agent in Charge Andrew Arena said.
The 38-count indictment alleges corruption regarding city contracts totaling at least $100 million, involving racketeering conspiracy, extortion, fraud and bribery.
In addition to Kwame Kilpatrick and Bernard Kilpatrick, named in the indictment are Kilpatrick’s good friend and city contractor, Bobby Ferguson;Victor Mercado, former head of the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department; and Derrick Miller who is a former chief administrative officer for the city of Detroit.
In announcing the charges, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said the accused turned the mayor’s office into a criminal enterprise.
No one in the CBS story is tagged as a Democrat.
Here are a few paragraphs from the AP's story, where the same condition is the case:
US files new charges against ex-Detroit mayor, dad
Imprisoned ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was indicted Wednesday on new corruption charges, and his father, Bernard Kilpatrick, also was implicated in what a federal prosecutor called a "pattern of extortion, bribery and fraud" among some of the city's most prominent officials.
U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade announced the 38-count indictment during a news conference. The indictment also lists longtime Kwame Kilpatrick associate Bobby Ferguson, ex-city water director Victor Mercado, and ex-mayoral aide and Kwame Kilpatrick's close friend Derrick Miller.
"This indictment alleges an audacious and far-reaching abuse of the public trust by a group of high-level city officials and their close associates," McQuade said.
Federal officials refer to the defendants under the racketeering conspiracy count in the 89-page indictment as the "Kilpatrick Enterprise, whose objective was "financially enriching Enterprise members, associates and their families. They did that, the indictment alleges, by using the power and authority of Kwame Kilpatrick's position" as a member of the Michigan House of Representatives and Detroit mayor "to commit extortion, bribery and fraud."
... (Kilpatrick) resigned as mayor in 2008 after pleading guilty to obstruction of justice in state court. He's now in prison for violating probation in that case and is awaiting trial in federal court on tax and fraud charges related to how he spent money from a nonprofit fund.
... Bernard Kilpatrick and Miller helped hold up a $50 million sewer lining contract until the winning bidder agreed to bring Ferguson's business into the deal, the indictment said. It said Ferguson ended up receiving $24.7 million in business.
The indictment lists 13 alleged fraudulent schemes in the awarding of contracts in the city's Department of Water and Sewerage.
"At the heart of the scheme ... was corruption in municipal contracting," McQuade said.
As yours truly has pointed out several times in the past (one is here), the Associated Press, which is running the story on its national wire, is violating its own Stylebook guidelines, namely that a reporter should “include party affiliation if readers need it for understanding or are likely to be curious about what it is,” in failing to tag Kilpatrick as a Democrat. Though it probably seems obvious to those who frequent this blog, many readers outside the Midwest will not instinctively know that most urban mayors in the large cities of the Midwest are Democrats. They need to see or hear that this is the case with Kilpatrick.
At the moment, the AP's response to its own rules appears to be: "Guidelines, schmidelines." I guess they're only meant to come into play when Republicans and/or conservatives, even obscure ones whose offenses go back almost two decades, are involved in illegal or unethical activity.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Seems to me
Submitted by jdlybrand on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:19am.
If there was an accompanying picture, that and his name would be a dead giveaway that he was a Democrat. There I go profiling again.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
New math
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:43am.
I rely on the simple formula: African American official + Democrat = Criminal. It works about 99.9% of the time.
You've got it all wrong!
Submitted by Now_I_Want_Change on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:47am.
The MSM (and myself, now that I've become enlightened) have long understood that if there is a criminal act by a politician, it must have been committed by a Democrat! Only on those rare cases when it's not a Democrat is it necessary to specify the party affiliation. This way the print media can save sooooooo much ink and thus they're hopeful they can return to profitability.
There's even an easy way to KNOW the party
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:48am.
that the criminal belongs to. If the article does not refer to party at all it is a lock that it's a democrat.
I would challenge anyone to point me at an article in the MSM that shows otherwise.
The real American people know
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:24am.
The real American people now take it for granted that the lame street media leaving out this most pertinent of information, it's a democrat.
They're only fooling themselves with their lies and omissions since they became the propaganda arm of the Obama regime.
It's actually comical that while " FOX NETWORKS " kicks their collective cable/network asses everyday with the simple phrase, " We Report You Decide ", they actually believe by declaring to the American people ' we are the most honest ' or ' I'm non biased ' while they only present the left wing bomb thrower point of view cuts it.
Better yet was the Obama administration orchastrated campaign telling their viewers, you're dumb, we're smart, so do as I say, not what you want.
That went over so well I just can't wait to see what the Ass Clown rolls out in January when Assholerod and Glibbs go home to Chicago to kick off the beginning of " Change You Better Believe In Or We're F@cked , 2012 " dead man walking campaign season.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Justice For Strawberry!!!
Submitted by Diesel on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:27pm.
It's too bad they couldn't throw this asshole or his "wife" on death row for the murder of Tamara 'Strawberry' Greene .
Corrupt City Mayor = Democrat
Submitted by needle on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 6:16pm.
2 + 2 = 4
Corrupt City Mayor = Democrat
Maybe this is so obvious that the AP thinks it is redundant.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Name that Party
Submitted by batcat on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:50pm.
1. Rule of thumb: No party mentioned=Democrat
2. Rule of thumb: Stories reported by the NY or LA Slimes, Wash. Compost, Nothing But Crap, All Bulls**t Channel, Constant Bull S**t, Communist News Network, etc. Whatever their story line is think just the opposite and that will be the true story. That's the way the Russians did it with Pravda.
3. Rule of thumb:
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:10pm.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, AP [and cbsnews] has often prominently identified Kilpatrick's party affiliation, e.g. here. Guess somebody didn't get the memo from Soros.
Jer
I don't think anyone here
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:22pm.
I don't think any of the NB staff or contributors have ever said that the media NEVER identifies a Democrat in a scandal story. They have shown time and time and time again stories where they are not identified by party affiliation. So, if you want to prove that they "often" have identified the party of Kilpatrick, you will need to provide more than an assertion and one instance where they did.
Well, it took me about 12
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:35pm.
Well, it took me about 12 seconds to find this one.
Maybe we should ask Tom what he means by "as usual".
Jer
Again, Jer, you may find a
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:43pm.
Again, Jer, you may find a few more. No one here has ever said that they don't ever mention affiliation. However, the guys at NB are not hayseeds who make hysterical conclusions based on no evidence. They are not laymen who make broad assertions based on one or two instances. They document and quantify their research. You may not believe their conclusions, but from my own non-expert observations and their evidence, I believe that the media does downplay party affiliation when the subject of a scandal is a Democrat. It has been demonstrated too many times that they treat Republicans and Democrats differently.
Did it again. Reply is
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:09am.
Did it again. Reply is below. I've been misplacing responses a lot since the changeover.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:30pm.
LOL - This is actually a case where it really is the arrows and not the Indian.
NB 2.0 most definitely still needs some work.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Here's what I mean by as usual, Jer
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:04am.
Now that the story has had about 30-36 hours to be out there, we see NB skeptics losing anoher tennis match:
Via Google News, obtained in about 90 seconds:
GAME --
"Kwame Kilpatrick" in quotes, Dec. 13-16: 345 items
SET --
["Kwame Kilpatrick" Democrat], Dec. 13-16: 5 items
MATCH --
["Kwame Kilpatrick" Democratic], Dec. 13-16: 4 items
I'd say 98.5% or so of the time qualifies as "usual" -- and undercuts your later comment to addressed to Chris (/ massive understatement).
Additionally, a Google Web search on ["Kwame Kilpatrick" Democrat] flags this humble NB post as THE lead news item.
Other than that, I don't have a lot of evidence. (/sarc)
Can't wait to see how trog tries to explain away this.
Not so fast, Tom...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:27am.
If you were referring to the reporting of this particular story, then "as usual" was a misleading phrase since it suggests the news agencies you referenced had in the past habitually omitted Kilpatrick's party affiliation. However, I was able to locate within a matter of seconds at least three instances where those very agencies had identified him as a Democrat.
Back to the practice court, Blumer. ;-)
Jer
edited to add: Just out of curiosity, do you think Kilpatrick's party affiliation should be republished in every single story. For example, should the Detroit Free-Press remind its readers that Kilpatrick, their ex-mayor, is a Democrat every time his name is mentioned in a separate article?
More Winners
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 9:02am.
Google News Archive, Jan. 1, 2009 - Nov. 30, 2010:
"Kwame Kilpatrick" -- 2,660
"Kwame Kilpatrick" Democrat -- 250
"Kwame Kilpatrick" Democratic -- 232
Take away posts like this one which get into Google News, and stories that contain both "Democrat" and "Democratic," and you're at 85%-90%, which more than qualifies as "usual."
I'd suggest finding another game. You're starting to embarrass yourself at this one.
Update, 5:50 p.m.: There is a distinct sound of crickets chirping, as Jer apparently won't put up the "You're right; I'm wrong" acknowledgment clearly called for in the circumstances.
Oh please...stop with the
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 9:15pm.
Oh please...stop with the crickets nonsense, Tom. I just now logged on and noticed your response. Google statistics only tell part of the story, and a small one at that. There's a complete absence of context. For example, I've seen reporting on topics which will involve a series of numerous articles with a "cast of characters" accompanying the introductory piece in which the principal players are described--including the party affiliation of the politicians--without the ID then being later repeated each and every time his or her name appears in succeeding articles. That alone would skew the statistics of party labeling.
Again, as you can note, I conceded in an earlier post there does appear to be a disparity in treatment, but, that, in my opinion, the disparity has been overstated; and while the explanation may in part involve a calculated bias against Republicans, there are other factors at play--several I have already touched on--and which I believe have the effect of exaggerating the actual level of that bias. And nothing you have stated, including the googled Kilpatrick statistics, has shaken my inclination toward that view.
Finally, do you have any thoughts on the question I posed in the edit to my previous post?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:09pm.
You might want to consider to play the same game but with the other party. If there was a concerted effort to downplay party affiliation on one side and highlight it on the other that should reflect in AP's coverage of scandals involving republicans. I will start:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Judge-questions-Giordano-s-abuse-of-office-80464.php
As you could see no mention of Giordano being a republican.
By comparing coverage in this case to the one mentioned by Tom one can start to speculate why party affiliation is sometimes mentioned and sometimes not: Perhaps it depends on whether the subject of reporting actually holds office at the time of reporting. Other reasons not withstanding of course.
trog...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:17pm.
That's a good point, and a related issue that I have occasionally looked into over the past few years, inasmuch as this party identification matter is frequently blogged about here. And you are correct...explicable and inexplicable omissions--as well as appropriate IDs--occur with respect to both parties. Timing and the type of office under scrutiny seem to be factors. Those holding prominent national office are generally identified [although there are exceptions], while lesser offices are less predictable.
That said, I do believe there is a legitimate case to be made for a tilt favoring the Dems in this area, but nowhere near to the extent it's been presented.
Jer
Geez, Do I have to do all of your work?
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:47am.
By all means, let's do talk about "the other party."
Google News, Jan. 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006:
-- "Duke Cunningham: 2,330
-- "Duke Cunningham" Republican -- 1,610
So you want a non-Congressional example? Let's try Tom Noe of Coingate fame in Ohio.
Google News, Jan. 1, 2005 - Dec. 31, 2006:
-- "Tom Noe" -- 358
-- "Tom Noe" Republican -- 289
Rate of Kilpatrick & Demo mentions shown earlier: roughly 10% - 15%
Rate of Cunningham-Republican mentions: 69%, i.e., over 2/3 of the time.
Rate of Noe-Republican mentions: 81%
Differentials: Cunningham's party noted somewhere between 4.5 - 7 times more often than Kilpatrick's; Noe's party noted somewhere between 5.5 - 8 times more often than Kilpatrick's.
You guys are so totally out of arguments, you ought to have the decency to admit it. Oh, I forgot what you are.
Tom, I replied to Jer below
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:01am.
Tom, I replied to Jer below that this what drives me nuts about his arguments. He will concede that there is a "disparity" or even "bias' at work, but still holds out - albeit reduced to protesting that we are "overreacting" or "overstating it". My question still stands for him: how much disparity and bias is okay?
Tom...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 2:42am.
FWIW, three of your five links aren't working for me. I get a "Page Not Found" message. However, I don't doubt the numbers you cite. Cunningham of course was a U.S. Congressman and they generally get IDed more often than local or state office holders.
With respect to Noe, how should the article be written? "Tom Noe, a prominent fundraiser for an unnamed political party charged with improperly funneling funds to the Re-election Committee of an unnamed President of the United States, etc., etc."???
Noe's party affiliation was central to the story. Kilpatrick's is ancillary.
Jer
Not really, Jer
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:52pm.
Detroit, and Wayne county are one-party political feifdoms. That's well known in Michigan. It is not so well known outside of Michigan. Most folks hear "Detroit" and shrug their shoulders, having seen the miles of boarded up houses, closed businesses, and the flight of anyone not a doper, ex-con, and career welfare recipient from the central city and close in suburbs of the city.
So, it would appear to be at least a semi-concious effort on the part of left leaning journolistas to protect the party affiliation of leftist wealth distributors. Or, does Kwame and Carolyn and the rest of their mob not deserve the light of disclosure shining on them? Don't forget, Kwame was a "prominent fundraiser" for Obama, and Granholm, so should he be referred to as a member of an "unnamed political party"?
Tom
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 7:59am.
Thank you for the sloppy links. Am I NB now or what was your last link intended to communicate?
Anyhow, thank you for proving my point. Concerning Duke Cunningham that would be: Your count includes a lot of reports while he was still in office. For your second case: Noe was a fundraiser and he was convicted of charges related to that profession. It would have been journalistically unprofessional not to mention at least somewhere the word republican.
And it would be nice if you at least once scrutinized your method thoroughly, to see whether it is worthwhile.
But thx for the cherry picking. It helped.
The links are fixed
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:28am.
... you could have reproduced what was missing with the correct links provided had you cared to.
There have been plenty of posts here at NB concerning how new stories about Dem Party fundraisers caught and convicted have avoided mentioning either the party affiliation, the candidate involved, or both.
My connection seems to be spotty. I did this link as well, which has also been fixed. It depicts what you two are, and why you're no longer worth engaging.
Have fun in your imaginary worlds, Black Knights.
From your last reference
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:20am.
I can only infer that you see yourself as King Arthur. You can get down off your high but imaginary horse, but beware of the rabbit!
And thank you again for not adressing the points I and Jer made. A well written argument could have made me change my mind. And who wants that?
You're not making arguments ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:13am.
... you're engaging in wild unsupported speculation about why what is real might conceivably not be. It's up to you to PROVE that, comprehensively. You clearly won't put in the effort to refute comprehensive individual Google News searches I have presented, so there's no point in taking your unsubstantiated non-arguments seriously.
And I won't.
Buh-bye.
Your post
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:39am.
clearly shows what is wrong with your reasoning. You presume that there is a deliberate bias with respect to party labels and then look for it. You neither look for evidence to the contrary, consider different explanations for the phenomenon you observe nor scrutinize the method you are using. Your methodical approach so far is unprofessional and renders all your "evidence" moot.
And if somebody comes along and criticises your method or results you link to Monthy Python videos in defense. That is, in short, pathetic for someone who wants to be taken seriously (at least I thought that this site and its contributors still have this goal).
Buh-Bye indeed.
You need an American history
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 12:44am.
You need an American history lesson.
The Democratic national Congressional campaign of 2006 was carried out with one central theme that was literally made the banner for the party in that election : "The Republican Culture of Corruption" and its poster boy, Mark Foley. This smear campaign, and that is all it was, a smear campaign, used a handful of prominent scandals to broad-brush the entire Republican Party as corrupt and indecent. This smear campaign never could have succeeded without the connivance and cooperation of the MSM in suppressing party label identification of all corrupt Democrats exposed, and the unbalanced trumpeting of a few petit sex scandals by the likes of Foley on the Republican side. The most laughable thing about this campaign was that Foley himself was never accused of having any actual sex with anybody! Fancy that! A sex scandal with NO SEX!
Now .... in light of the above, do you still think it not relevant that the MSM continues to FAIL to identify party labels whenever Democrats are exposed?
What does that have to do with
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:55am.
how Mr. Blumer approaches this subject?
Tom... I didn't avoid you.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:36pm.
Tom...
I didn't avoid you. I dealt with you and the issue fairly and honestly. You failed to address the one question I posed to you, even after I repeated the request. Reacting with demeaning pictures and snide comments isn't helpful.
Jer
Fairness & Honesty, The Lawyer Edition
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 1:46pm.
I dealt with you and the issue fairly and honestly.
And how do we know Jer did? Why, Jer himself said he did.
- Shrinkwrapped Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
You're a commenter, not an inquisitor ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:25pm.
... and I'm not on trial. The press is.
The answer to your "question" is the same as it's always been, and it is contained in the post itself:
"include party affiliation if readers need it for understanding or are likely to be curious about what it is."
The press has consistently failed to follow this guideline in the case of Democrats, and short of dissecting every article ever written, I have provided as strong a proof of that as you'll ever see.
So you'll excuse me for not answering your "question" to your satisfaction. In reality, it was already asked and answered and you won't accept it. Too freaking bad.
So you can take your "question" and put it where the sun don't shine.
OK, one more!
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 4:14pm.
As party affiliation is not necessary for understanding the story, this leaves only curiosity. That you are curious I understand. That you think that your curiosity is the gold standard AP has to respect, is ridiculous.
The, as Noel would put it, delicious irony: To truly understand bias you have to see past your own. You clearly are not willing to do that.
As party affiliation is not
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 6:58pm.
As party affiliation is not necessary for understanding the story ...
The hell it's not.
Additionally, readers who go to the trouble of reading news stories "are likely to be curious about what it (the party affiliation) is." That's curious from a "this would be worthwhile information to know" standpoint, not one of trivia. "Likely" is the AP's word not mine. That's their standard, and they're not meeting it.
Therefore, you lose. Game over It's official. But thanks for taking the bait. :-->
The hell it's not. OK, why
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:08am.
The hell it's not.
OK, why then is it? Up to now you haven't even tried to explain why that is an important point. What sets his party membership apart from say his religion as a matter of importance to this story? Is being a member of the democratic party somehow sufficient or necessary for being corrupt?
That's curious from a "this would be worthwhile information to know" standpoint, not one of trivia.
Again: That this is worthwhile information for you, I understand. That the likelihood that this is interesting to you approaches 1, I understand. But that your interest is the standard AP has to meet, is prepostorous at best.
The only bias obvious here is yours.
If you really don't understand ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:06pm.
... how membership in a political party is relevant to a story about corruption in an elected political office, I literally can't help you.
The standard in question is the AP's, and what has been identified, demonstrated, and proven is its clear, one-sided failure to meet its own standard.
Wow, the longer this goes, the worse you look.
If you are literally unable to help me,
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:21am.
then I take this as a tacit admission that you are incapable to explain why this is relevant to the story. Subsequently this can only be seen as surrender. It is hereby accepted.
26cx's Free Translation Services
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:32am.
When Tom said:
"If you really don't understand...how membership in a political party is relevant to a story about corruption in an elected political office, I literally can't help you."
What he meant was:
There's a very good possibility that you are either intellectually incapable of understanding his point or refusing to do so for the sake of argument.
He could have just tried.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:38am.
That he doesn't bother to do so, speaks volumes, either of his arrogance or his incapability.
~NONE of us
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:43am.
are here to hold your sticky little hand. Quit mewling and puking, lightweight.
Not you too.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:01pm.
A Pluralis Majestatis is nothing that suits you.
~So
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:04pm.
It's your contention that some contributors/members ARE here to hold your hand?
Wearing your @ss for a hat suits you just fine.
No
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:22pm.
my contention is that you lack the power or clout, whether argument-wise or in real terms, to employ the term "us" in your phrases for the purpose of ....
I'm bored now. And my statement will shortly be translated by my fellow translator anyway.
26cx's Free translation Service
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:29pm.
(I'm working overtime today!)
When Troglodyte says:
"my contention is that you lack the power or clout, whether argument-wise or in real terms, to employ the term "us" in your phrases for the purpose of ....I'm bored now."
What he means is
"I am unable to complete my thought..."
~Yeah, there's just NO WAY
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:38pm.
That not a single member of this site doesn't get up in the morning and log into NB just to explain the nuances of the English language to trog the troll. No WAY. It can't be possible.
What were we talking about again?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:46pm.
One can't stay on topic with you.
~You were whining
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:51pm.
about how Tom needs to draw you pictures and then explain them to you. Keep going, it's fun to watch you insist you're dumb. Not that we need any convincing.
It is interesting
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:02pm.
how you are able to avoid to post anything which can be taken seriously. On the other hand it has an advantage: If the wrathful one shows up, everyone can just shut down their brains and stop having a sensible dialogue. Random strokes on your keyboard will keep this going and going and going and going and...
~Right
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:38pm.
Says the guy who pukes all over the thread if Tom doesn't dumb his posts down to the intellectual level of pond scum. When trog was born they threw away the troll and kept the afterbirth.
Whine on, trog. Keep pushing the thread to the right while you whine and whine and whine and whine and whine...
For obvious reasons
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:50pm.
he didn't need to dumb down his posts. From what is currently post #26 any dumbing down would have been redundant as he gave up on arguing his point and went on to post victory dances.
So you keep on whining about my behaviour and together as Team Pond we reach the right hand oblivion.
26cx's Free Translation Services
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:10pm.
When Troglodyte says:
"A Pluralis Majestatis is nothing that suits you."
What he means is:
I have this cool latin phrase that I'm not sure how to use correctly, but I'm going to try it here.
26CX translation services*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:12pm.
Trying to translate a TROG is indeed difficult. Here ya go 26cx, found some friends of yours to help you out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCWN53ncRc&feature=related
Cajun
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:22pm.
This smile will be on my face the rest of the afternoon. Thank you!
Hold that smile 26cx*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:50pm.
Recognize this guy?...Dont look at me like that, we report, you decide!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hoax-creepy-pic-claims-to-show-strange-creature-in-louisian-woods/
Cajun,
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:56pm.
Of course I recognize that guy. It's James Carville foraging for food at night like he usually does.
Better Warn Cocodrie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:06pm.
Sounds like that Carville creature may be in Cocodrie's back yard...rofl
And you are a contributing editor...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 1:17am.
and should be above tossing around gratuitous insults.
I wasn't demanding you answer the question "to [my] satisfaction". I was simply asking for your opinion. And when you step into the fray to engage commenters--which I applaud you for doing, by the way--I think posing a question to you, in a respectful manner, is in no way out of bounds.
Jer
That wasn't gratuitous. Not
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 1:24am.
That wasn't gratuitous. Not even close.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
You're opinion is duly
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 1:41am.
You're opinion is duly noted. If you would care to stick around and explain it, I will give it my full attention. Otherwise, you may go now.
Jer
By the way, Free...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 2:05am.
This is what you are and why you're not worth engaging any more. So you can take your "opinion" and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Jer
It's really too easy to get
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:22pm.
It's really too easy to get your goat.
You have a nice day.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Not true, Free.. It requires
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:57pm.
Not true, Free.. It requires clear gratuitous insults to "get my goat". Remeber when I made that extremely mild and good-natured kidding remark about your fervent support for Sarah Palin, and you reacted as if I had launched an horrific personal assault against you?
Now that was an example of someone having his goat gotten with incredible ease.
Jer
Actually, all I told you was
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:27pm.
Actually, all I told you was that your Palin remark was creepy, even for you.
You Liberals are exceptionally touchy now that the Obama administration is falling to pieces.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Right...That's what I'm well
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:42am.
Right...That's what I'm well known for at this website: My incredibly creepy comments.
Also, if you recall, I explained, in effect, that the Palin quip was just a good-natured aside that I didn't dream would upset you and that I was sorry. You ignored it and apparently continued to pout.
As far as Obama falling to pieces and my alleged "touchiness" because of it: Sorry to disappoint, but this ain't my first rodeo, Free. I don't wring my hands, wail to the heavens, and start talking secession and revolution. I take the vagaries of politics in stride.
Jer
Yes, we can see how well
Submitted by Free Stinker on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:29pm.
Yes, we can see how well you're taking Obama's failures in stride . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
As previously stated ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:13am.
... Your "question" was already asked and answered in the body of the post and you won't accept it. Too freaking bad.
And you prove my point by engaging in more trollish behavior, claiming an "insult" where there was none.
With all due respect, Tom...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:45am.
You could have suggested that it had been answered in the body of the post without getting indignant about my being an "Inquisitor" who "could stick my question where the sun don't shine" and [earlier] that I "wasn't worth engaging." Now you accuse me of engaging in trollish behavior. You may think all of that is not insulting. I beg to differ.
Jer
Chris... I think there is a
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:05am.
Chris...
I think there is a disparity, and I'm not sure of the reasons for it, but I don't think the disparity is as great as has been portrayed. I've done a good bit of background checking when this topic comes up in a blog and have sometimes found that the omission will have occurred in only one article--or a small number--out of a series, or will be absent when the item first hits the wires yet shows up in later updates. Occasionally, there will be an omission by, say ABC, but not in the other MSM outlets--or the NYT or WaPo may be cited for a failure to list the party and yet a search of their archived articles concerning the same politician and transgression will reveal numerous IDs.
Again, I'm not saying the charge is bogus, but I do believe it's overblown.
Jer
Jer, if it's not bogus, how
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:26am.
Jer, if it's not bogus, how can it be overblown? Is a "little bias" okay? How much is okay? That's the trouble I have with the way you (and Balboa) argue. You indicate that you can perhaps see media bias, but think we are overreacting. We think the issue of media bias is a huge problem. The media has the basic reponsibility to inform the public honestly - and, in matters political, they usually don't. Electoral decisions are based on the information the media provides and if the information is tainted with bias, then that is tantamount to voter fraud and manipulation. That's why I feel as strongly as I do. You can quibble with or even strongly oppose a hyperbolic statement from a laymen commenter here, but the main evidence still stands. You can question the interpretation of a statement in the news made by a poster here, but nibbling around the edges does not make the main evidence of media bias go away. There's just too darn much of it.
I have to sign off now. I have a cold and need to hit the hay. I'll check back in the morning. Good night.