Democrats never get "outed" as Democrats by the MSM if they are accused of crimes and corruption, but if they are Republicans... well, that party affiliation is rarely held back by that same media. Some may have scoffed at this claim that GOPers are always outed while Dems are always shielded, but here is so perfect an example of it that it almost seems that we wrote it ourselves as a Halloween joke. Today we have a case where the party affiliation of a Republican nearly leads the report of a legislator accused of a sex crime. Even more amusingly -- or sadly as the case may be -- our example here is written by the same AP reporter who failed to report the Democrat label in past stories. Nope, no bias here!
On October 4th, we had a Newsbusters piece displaying the "reporting" of one Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer, who gave us a little tale about a state Senator from South Dakota who is accused of sexually molesting a legislative Page. One tiny aspect of the facts of that particular story seemed to slip by old Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer and that would be that the accused legislator is a Democrat. So, go ahead... ask. What would old Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer, do if he should be assigned a story where the eeeeevil sex offender was a Republican lawmaker? Come on, I know you are dying to ask. Well, since you asked, here are the first two paragraphs of a recent piece by my man Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓PIERRE - A former state lawmaker will stand trial starting Tuesday on rape charges based on accusations that he molested two of his foster daughters under the pretense of helping them make thousands of dollars by selling their reproductive eggs. The charges against former Rep. Ted A. Klaudt, R-Walker, mark the second time in a year that the South Dakota Legislature has been rocked by allegations of improper sexual conduct by a lawmaker. One of Klaudt's alleged offenses occurred when a foster daughter was a page during a legislative session.
What is that you see there, in the second paragraph 9 words in? Gosh, why it's a party affiliation. And what is the party again? (he asks expectantly)
"The charges against former Rep. Ted A. Klaudt, R-Walker..."
Could the accused lawmaker be a Republican from Walker, South Dakota? I think so... in fact, I KNOW so because our little pal Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer, made darn sure we'd learn that salient fact. Say, did we ever mention that the Associated Press has a policy that party affiliation is only mentioned when it's pertinent to a story? Musta been waaaay pertinent this time but not in the other story, eh? Elsewise our buddy Chet Brokaw, Associated Press Writer, would never have bothered mentioning it this time, but not last time. Right? (Hat tip Newsbuster clifcrds)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tom?
October 31, 2007 - 04:16 ET by imau2fanHmmm, Tom Brokaw grew up in South Dakota.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brokaw
Perhaps Chet and Tom are related? Can bias be genetic? :)
The Associated Press has a
October 31, 2007 - 05:41 ET by motherbeltThe Associated Press has a policy that party affiliation is only mentioned when it's pertinent to a story
Well, apparently when the guilty or suspected or accused one is a Republican, that makes it relevant.
Good catch! They are soooooo predictable.
Warner, did you read the actual Oct 3, AP story by Chet Brokaw?
October 31, 2007 - 06:00 ET by ding7777How can you hold Chet responsible for how KXMB News edits the story on their website?
Ding, the story I gave the
October 31, 2007 - 06:13 ET by Warner Todd HustonDing, the story I gave the first time was not just the KXMB version. It was in several forms on several different websites. None of them THEN had Democrat in the story. If it has shown up in the story since that time, or appeared in an AP version that I did not see, I cannot say. Besides, I ALWAYS look for several AP stories before I chose one to highlight. I have dumped an idea for a story when I found multiple AP versions that contradicted my first thought.
But, you made a claim here about editing. I am sure that rarely do websites edit an AP version of a story... in fact, I'd guess it would be a violation of their terms for using an AP feed story! The AP would not continue to allow their work to be edited and sit idly by while it happened. I am pretty sure that any site that uses an official AP feed does not edit them but publishes them straight as AP supplies them.
One of the main reasons that Newspapers and news websites use AP stories is out of laziness. The AP story does all the leg work that a paper doesn't want to do. That being true, why would a paper then waste all sorts of time re-reading an AP story and then bothering to edit them?? It would defeat the whole purpose of having a ready made story that can be hastily thrown up and forgotten about.
So, in short, I do not believe that KXMB edited the AP version I cited, nor do I believe any other website, paper or TV station edits AP's content. And if they do it is uncommon.
Besides, there would have to be an AWFUL lot of entities editing and AWFUL lot of AP stories to take out the Democrat label from the kinds of stories I have highlighted! It would be a conspiracy grand and widespread, for sure.
You don't even have to go
October 31, 2007 - 06:22 ET by motherbeltYou don't even have to go very far to find another example of AP indifference to the "D" label: yesterday Jason Aslinger posted a story here about the District Attorney of New Orleans in a firing for favoritism scandal without mentioning his party affiliation. Maybe also because it had racial overtones (he fired white and hispanics and hired blacks)?
Warner
October 31, 2007 - 06:30 ET by ding7777Here's the AP story as published on Oct 3, 2007 in the Guardian Unlimited - its exactly as the Associated Press above and contains the Democrat affiliation reference.
Since you are part of a news organization, maybe you can explain why the AP would have both a shortened and complete version of the same story - does it has to with subscriber fees or RSS feeds (I'm just guessing) - but in any case, Chet Brokaw did use the political affiliation.
The AP always prints
October 31, 2007 - 06:38 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe AP always prints multiple versions of its stories. Shorter and longer ones for multiple uses. Still, I am saying here that I checked several versions of the original story back on the 4th and none of the ones I could find THEN had the word Democrat in them. AP DOES amend and update stories, though. It is possible that they added the party affiliation later.
Still, it is immaterial. I saw that there was no Democrat label in several AP versions and I cited one.
Or are you saying that the one I cited DOES have Democrat in it?
No, I'm saying that you
October 31, 2007 - 07:42 ET by ding7777posted about "the "reporting" of one Chet Brokaw" is inaccuate since both the complete AP version and the Guardian version had the affiliation embeded in the story.
Since there are 2 versions, why not email Chet and find out for sure if the AP amended his copy to include the political affiliation that you claim he negelected?
Who knows, maybe Chet saw your post and agreed with it so that he now is including the affiliation of politicians.
Warner lying again?No
October 31, 2007 - 07:55 ET by LeonWarner lying again?
No way!
How many times does this guy have to get caught lying before people stop listening to him. Busted on this one hardcore.
Furthermore, Warner's outrage over his being mentioned as a Republican should not be greater than his outrage over the fact he RAPED his foster daughters. What a sick creep this guy is.
And here's Warner, more upset about the fact they let us know he was a Republican. Sweet prioritizing.
Leon - What is wrong with you? Why do you have to act so
October 31, 2007 - 08:25 ET by Dee Bunkimmature sometimes? If I were newsbusters I'd suspend you for this name-calling. You obviously don't have a valid point if you have to name-call. How dare you call WTH a liar and say he doesn’t care about the offense. That is so unbelievably rude and ignorant. The point of his story is that sex offense has nothing to do with political affiliation. He’s not excusing the Republican he’s saying the fact that he’s a Republican is irrelevant.
But Dee, He lied. How
October 31, 2007 - 08:29 ET by LeonBut Dee,
He lied. How is it immature to call someone a liar when they lie.
Look at all of you rushing to defend Warner and his manipulation of the truth.
As always, you value loyalty over truth.
Doesn't it make you angry when the Mastheads you trust write lies?
Leon - mystery solved. WTH link Oct 2 - Ding's is Oct 3
October 31, 2007 - 14:42 ET by Dee BunkLeon - mystery solved. WTH link Oct 2 - Ding's is Oct 3. Why do you have to be so antagonistic? It was clear that WTH did not lie but now this is absolute proof unless you can produce an article from Oct 2nd that shows the affiliation. Even if you could do that, it still wouldn't indicate a lie by WTH. It would only be indicative of a possible mistake by the station he quoted (not WTH).
You owe both WTH (and me for that matter) and apology. I wish you could show some balls and just do it.
An apology from Leon!!!
October 31, 2007 - 14:56 ET by vrwc13The best apology you get from him is no response. He quits when he loses. Altough sometimes he goes on and on and on when he loses, but in this case he doesn't realize he has lost. Simple and plain.
v
"At least I am a guy and not desperately trying to be one." Leon
vrwc - I know Leon isn't even here now
October 31, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Dee BunkI wish I would have been around earlier for his comments. The next time I see him, I'm going to bring this up and see what he's made of.
I have too much faith in people to do the right thing. It's a serious flaw.
Dee Bunk - Leon and his ilk...
October 31, 2007 - 15:28 ET by vrwc13Your name fits your work on showing Leon's accusations. Maybe NB should have a thread on "follow-ups." Too many times folks like Leon leave thinking they have won, only to be "debunked" later and never know it. Or pretend to anyway.
v
Oh and note to Dee, There
October 31, 2007 - 08:30 ET by LeonOh and note to Dee,
There is no personal attack in my post. I called the rapist a sick creep, not Warner.
It's sad.
October 31, 2007 - 13:20 ET by Free StinkerEven going so far as to write an entire forum post about me
imploring people to ignore me, and then not even taking your own
advice.
It's sad.
Actually it's funny. You go nuts when I do the <name>: 1 Leon: 0 thing.
We seem to have more success with iritating you than ignoring you.
Ok FS, So your entire
October 31, 2007 - 13:23 ET by LeonOk FS,
So your entire goal on this website is to try to annoy me with your cool scoreboard joke?
Weird. haha.
I go nuts? Hardly. Unlike you I actually have self-control.
So your entire goal on
October 31, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Free StinkerSo your entire goal on this website is to try to annoy me with your cool scoreboard joke?
So we can add megalomania to your list of flaws . . .
Annoying you is more of a side-show. (sometimes an entertaining one)
No Warner, You just
October 31, 2007 - 07:52 ET by LeonNo Warner,
You just didn't read close enough.
Lazy lazy lazy.
Like any good Republican, when caught red handed, you claim faulty memory. haha.
I claimed no faulty memory.
October 31, 2007 - 08:10 ET by Warner Todd HustonI claimed no faulty memory.
Sure you did
October 31, 2007 - 08:12 ET by LeonSure you did Warner.
Still, I am saying here that I checked several versions of the original story back on the 4th and none of the ones I could find THEN had the word Democrat in them
You're just as bad as the people you are supposedly out to combat. You're just as biased, just as manipulative with the pieces, and just as dishonest.
You've become what you originally set out to fight.
Only a Troll could find "faulty memory" in that statement
October 31, 2007 - 08:17 ET by RJBut what else is new? Another day, more immature Trolling from Leon.
Only an apologist used to
October 31, 2007 - 08:20 ET by LeonOnly an apologist used to defending liars could stand up for Warner and his blatant, exposed lying.
But what else is new?
Grow up, Leon
October 31, 2007 - 08:23 ET by RJYou're the only one you're impressing with your immature trolling.
Grow up? Sorry RJ,
October 31, 2007 - 08:26 ET by LeonGrow up?
Sorry RJ, Warner lied and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Try to divert from this reality by focusing on me all you want, but it won't change the fact that Warner lied to all us.
He owes every reader of Newsbusters an apology and he needs to update his story providing the appropriate corrections.
Unlike you, Leon, a mature poster would be able to
October 31, 2007 - 08:29 ET by RJmake an argument without the childish posturing you invariably resort to.
Ok RJ OK.
October 31, 2007 - 08:32 ET by LeonOk RJ OK.
Too bad that's not sincere, leon
October 31, 2007 - 08:35 ET by RJThen, we could all look forward to your posting in a grown-up manner, rather than constantly being barraged with your shrill, disingenuous hysterics.
RJ, You're not being
October 31, 2007 - 08:36 ET by LeonRJ,
You're not being subjected to anything.
Newsbusters is voluntary in nature.
Wow, Leon, that's even more immature...
October 31, 2007 - 08:39 ET by RJ....if possible.
Leon - What is your problem? It's the AP who owes an appology
October 31, 2007 - 08:31 ET by Dee BunkThey shouldn't correct stories without labeling them as corrections. You are crazy if you think people should go back every 5 min and check to see if the story they reported on was changed. Stop your immature name-calling.
Dee, They didn't correct
October 31, 2007 - 08:32 ET by LeonDee,
They didn't correct any stories. The original AP story mentioned the Democrat party affiliation.
Leon - Who knows or cares what the original was?
October 31, 2007 - 08:36 ET by Dee BunkWarner linked to the article he was referring to. It was an AP article and it didn't mention the affiliation. It's not Warner's fault that they have multiple versions. Stop being obnoxious.
Warner disingenuously
October 31, 2007 - 08:40 ET by LeonWarner disingenuously linked to some tiny local news source in Bismarck.
The story the AP released clearly stated party affiliation. How KXMB chooses to present the AP's story is not the fault of the AP.
And dee, the AP does not have multiple versions of stories. They release one version. Why are arguing about something you clearly have no idea about?
"Warner lied and people
October 31, 2007 - 08:28 ET by MightyMouth"Warner lied and people died". Is that what you're getting at Leon? You leftist lunatics see lies in everything. But you in particular have a knack for lunacy that few others poses.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
There was no claim of faulty
October 31, 2007 - 08:25 ET by Warner Todd HustonThere was no claim of faulty memory there.
Do you need remedial English classes?
Ah Warner, Desperately
October 31, 2007 - 08:27 ET by LeonAh Warner,
Desperately trying to move the conversation away from the fact that you lied.
Do I need remedial English classes? I don't know, you're the guy that couldn't read Democrat in the article.
You claimed in the articles you read there was no mention of democrat, but clearly there was, and you're just lying. That's claiming faulty memory.
Pretty funny. A claim was
October 31, 2007 - 08:39 ET by Warner Todd HustonPretty funny. A claim was made that I claimed faulty memory. I did not. THEN you shift the argument to other things.
Typical leftist attack mode. Lose an argument? Shift the grounds of debate and claim that was your point all along.
Warner, Classic
October 31, 2007 - 08:43 ET by LeonWarner,
Classic Republican move. Ignore those pointing out your lies and divert attention to menial issues at all costs.
I didn't change my argument. You claimed the stories you read didn't say Democrat, but clealry you're lying about that. That's inherently claiming faulty memory.
Why don't you address the fact that the REAL and original AP story mentioned the Dem party affiliation?
I don't have a stake in
October 31, 2007 - 08:58 ET by JasonCI don't have a stake in this particular issue, and I think Leon is one of the more articulate and insightful posters on this site (sorry NBers, but ideology and basic argumentative acumen are two different beasts), but my basic reaction here is that WTH has done nothing wrong.
That's my $.02, and off I go.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC
October 31, 2007 - 09:04 ET by RJArticulate, yes, but also thoroughly disingenuous. When challenged, he will resort to ANY argument and stick with it, no matter how ridiculous....as you saw in this thread.
RJ, perhaps, and no
October 31, 2007 - 09:09 ET by JasonCRJ, perhaps, and no offense, but be careful in that glass house of yours. I recall many an occasion where the integrity of a debate between you and me has devolved into your questioning my patriotism and me having to bend over backwards to demonstrate why that's immaterial, thus derailing the original issue.
Just sayin'.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC
October 31, 2007 - 09:32 ET by RJHow does my "questioning your patriotism" (if it happened) show my own disingenuousness, Jason?
But, regardless of your devolving this conversation, if it occured on "many an occasion", it should be easy for you to provide examples. And, if it happened as you remember, those examples will prove you correct.
Just sayin'. ;^>
Anyone that
October 31, 2007 - 09:41 ET by bassndudeAnyone that sayes patriotism is immaterial, is not a patriot. That very statement of yours defines your patriotism, or lack there of.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Patriotism is immaterial to
October 31, 2007 - 09:58 ET by JasonCPatriotism is immaterial to many issues, particularly when Patriotism is explicitly linked to conservative ideology, ie "Questioning the sanctity of unfettered free markets is un-American" or "Criticizing the decision to invade Iraq is un-American." These are not issues of Patriotism, but of logic, ethics, morality, and so forth.
Frankly, one's sense of Patriotism is irrelevant to almost any debate other than one that is explicitly about Patriotism in and of itself.
RJ, as far as I know, all posts from before the big overhaul are no longer accessible, and I've been largely off the radar since, so examples are difficult. If you want to deny that you've called my patriotism into question on topics whose argumentative imperative laid elsewhere, be my guest.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Nice, Jason
October 31, 2007 - 10:06 ET by RJ1) You devolve the conversation away from my original point, 2) you ignore my challenge of that, 3) you claim, without proof, that I've inappropriately devolved past conversations in order to attack your patriotism, but 4) I'm the one who is in denial?
Just sayin'. ;^>
Who cares if Jason is a
October 31, 2007 - 11:53 ET by NewsbusterbrownWho cares if Jason is a patriot or not? At least he defended Walter, which means Leon can't defend his position that Walter lied nearly as well now. :-)
newsbusterbrown, that's like believing garlic stops vampires...
October 31, 2007 - 12:02 ET by RJ;^)
As for the "patriotism" thing, Jason dragged it into the conversation. It's HIS obsession.
RJ, the beginning of our
October 31, 2007 - 12:13 ET by JasonCRJ, the beginning of our subthread was based on your making empty, general remarks concerning Leon's style of arguing. To which I have to reply, if Leon is a troll, then so are you. The patriotism is not my obsession, it has been your rhetorical tool to attack my credibility in almost every long-term exchange you and I have had, including exchanges that have nothing to do with the topic. If I must make it crystal clear, my point is that that has been your trolling M.O., and I think Leon deserves to be defended from your consistent accusations of trolling.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Nice, Jason
October 31, 2007 - 12:24 ET by RJYou get to make general remarks about Leon's (or my) style of arguing, but I don't? Awwww.
Troll? Haha. Good one, Jason. I recommend you look up the definition. Because, let's not forget that it was you who "devolved" the conversation.
Again with the whining "patriotism" obsession....and still nothing to back it up.
Just sayin'. ;^>
Actually. you did. All I
October 31, 2007 - 12:30 ET by JasonCActually. you did. All I did was say I agreed with WTH and that I thought Leon was off the mark on that one. At which point you came in to bitch about Leon's general style and I felt compelled to defend him since he takes constant verbal beatings for using the same caustic humor and sarcasm that the conservatives on here use all the time. If his ideology was in line with yours, you'd love him.
I think we've wasted enough of WTH's board, so if you want to keep going on this one, feel free to open a woodshed forum in which you can try to prove that you don't fit the exact classification of Troll that you level at Leon and myself.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Of course I did, Jason
October 31, 2007 - 12:57 ET by RJIt was a rhetorical question. ;^)
But I gotta love that you make comments, while I "bitch." Yet again, you act as if we operate under different rules of engagement.
Prove? Ha. Jason, can you really think your devolving, obsessive posts have created something necessary to refute?
Fair Enough JasonC, Can't
October 31, 2007 - 12:46 ET by LeonFair Enough JasonC,
Can't argue with you there, but my suspicion is that Warner intentionally sought out some tiny local news source that had a different version of the original AP story so he could level his claim against the whole of the AP.
It was disingenuous in my opinion, not to mention, a flat out lie since the AP's story did clearly indicate party affiliation.
As a side note, I appreciate your words concerning trolling. I constantly get called a troll, however I feel I'm normally on-topic, but others, in their desperation to attack me, drag the conversations off-topic. RJ, for all of her Troll calls, is arguably the biggest troll on this website.
Simple & Plain
October 31, 2007 - 12:48 ET by Free StinkerSimple & Plain
Starve That Troll Too
October 31, 2007 - 12:52 ET by LeonStarve That Troll
Too funny. Loved watching you scamper off when I brought this up the other day.
Again, why preach a behavior if you're not going to engage in it?
Poor Reading comprehension.
October 31, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Free StinkerPoor Reading comprehension. -- Simple & Plain
If you must answer his post, couldn't you just reply with "Simple & Plain" (or "Plain and Simple") and leave it at that?
Ha! Gotcha sucka. Poor
October 31, 2007 - 12:56 ET by LeonHa!
Gotcha sucka. Poor reading comprehension wasn't one of the Leon response options you're preaching.
If you must answer his post, couldn't you just reply with "Simple & Plain" (or "Plain and Simple") and leave it at that?
Yes, You should, but you can't because you're obsessed with me.
do you need to sound like you just watched a Shaft marathon?
October 31, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Free StinkerI did add a little bit to the prefered response, but we're not blindly obeying rules simply for the sake of the rule.
We leave that sort of thing to you Libs.
Gotcha sucka.
We know this is all a big game of "gotcha" to you, facts & truth be dxmned, but do you need to sound like you just watched a Shaft marathon?
Am I and my gigantic head in your top five now?
No, but I seriously do love
October 31, 2007 - 13:04 ET by LeonNo, but I seriously do love that photo.
It's almost like the borders of the picture are straining to maintain the incredible size of your dome.
Anything to bring out the
October 31, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Free StinkerAnything to bring out the ad hominum in you Libs.
Hey, you asked. Am I and
October 31, 2007 - 13:08 ET by LeonHey, you asked.
Am I and my gigantic head in your top five now?
If you classify your own head as gigantic (which it is and anyone can see in your sweet photo), is it really an ad hominem attack or is it an accepted observation?
Actually, I was quoting you
October 31, 2007 - 13:10 ET by Free StinkerActually, I was quoting you from an earlier post.
It's funny how you forget the things you write here.
And, just like with everyone else you argue with here, you avoided the question: Top Five Yet?
Sigh, Clearly you didn't
October 31, 2007 - 13:17 ET by LeonSigh,
Clearly you didn't actually quote me, because I wouldn't have used the word 'my'. Nice try though.
I'm embarassed for you. It's painful to watch you following me around, throwing in useless, snide remarks. Trying to be funny and failing miserably. Even going so far as to write an entire forum post about me imploring people to ignore me, and then not even taking your own advice.
It's sad.
You could file Warner's
October 31, 2007 - 12:48 ET by balboaYou could file Warner's story alongside Tim Graham's one about Olberman and the faux outrage at the non-ridicule of Max McGee.
Agreed Balboa, Makes you
October 31, 2007 - 12:54 ET by LeonAgreed Balboa,
Makes you wonder how serious these guys are about actually combating media bias.
Leon,
October 31, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Hero SquadI think where you lost people is jumping out right away and calling Warner a "liar." That connotates a willful misrepresentation of a fact, and sorry, I don't see anything close to resembling that in this instance. To suggest that he saw an AP story that had "Democrat" in it and decided to move ahead anyway is somewhat silly. It does seem plausible in the age of the Internet where updates occur regularly that an updated story was released after his essay was written.
It's likewise possible that Brokaw did include it in his story and it was subsequently removed by some media outlets. While that would exonerate Brokaw, it would still hold true that many media outlets are masking party affiliation.
Based on the way you are characterizing a lie, though, I guess if you took a math test and got 8 of 10 problems correct, your paper included two "lies." And lying to your professor just should not be tolerated.
For what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, intentionally at least. But if you are interested in engaging in meaningful dialogue, your methods at times are unnecessarily inflammatory.
**My Daughter at the WWII Memorial
100% Right!
October 31, 2007 - 19:38 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou are 100% right. Leon is the real liar here. He made all sorts of accusations every one of which were shot down one at a time. Then he went from an outright claim that I am a liar to a "feeling" that I cherrypicked a story. He used sources from a day later than the sources I used, not owning up to the fact that those later sources didn't exist when I was doing my own checking and not accepting that they were different than the sources I used. He claimed I lied about my source, but never once proved that there was a lie there. He claimed I said my memory was "faulty" but when it was pointed out that I never said such a thing, he mysteriously ignored that track of complaint against me like he never said it. When even the leftist posters said I did nothing strictly wrong, he slipped from an outright accusation of me being a liar to me just being a cherrypicker. His whole argument blew up in his face.
So, will I get an apology?
Since there is no integrity on the left, I won't hold my breath.
Warner, this seems like a familiar pattern
October 31, 2007 - 19:51 ET by RJIf I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time Leon has attacked you for (his specious definition of) lying.
But, back when he was posting under "hater", there was another NB blogger (don't remember the name) he singled out for attacking on a regular basis in just the same way.
Just pointing out that there seems to be intent here, and that it's likely to happen again.
Yes, he's done it before.
October 31, 2007 - 21:49 ET by Warner Todd HustonYes, he's done it before. But here is the funny thing. He has maybe three posts of mine he is angry over and uses it as proof of my "constant" lies. But, I have posted here almost EVERY day for well over a year. He has three out of over 300 posts where maybe I was wrong or incorrect about something. I'd say that my stats are pretty good at that level. It puts me in the 90th percentile correct!
I never said I was perfect. I never said I couldn't be wrong. But if he only has three incidents (and ones he has to spin to get his way at that) out of hundreds and hundreds then I feel I'm doing pretty good!
Warner
October 31, 2007 - 21:57 ET by BlondeTake Free's advice, ignore Leon.
He's a first class troll.
He gets off on "taking on" you bloggers and the some of us posters here. And then derailing an entire worthwhile thread.
Unless you enjoy slapping around the terminally stupid....which is sometimes fun. Well, if you've had a frustrating day at work.....
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Leonovitch Trotsky a first class troll? LMAO.
October 31, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Dave RActually, B, he's more like a third-rate rodent.
A rodent that is rapidly approaching extermination. Well, we can dream, anyway.
GOP Gets Labeled Twice!
October 31, 2007 - 09:34 ET by zeestephenThere is also a pay-for-gay sex political scandal in WA state.
News broke yesterday.
A "GOP" state legislator from Vancouver had his wallet stolen by a young man who claims he was paid $100 for sex.
The young man then attempted to blackmail the legislator.
Seattle's regional news channel identifies the legislator with a "GOP" designation every couple minutes on the news scroll at the bottom of the screen.
As a slightly unscientific
October 31, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Hunter12As a slightly unscientific test of Warren's contention, try this:
Google "Associated Press Democrat scandal" and look at the results count, then try "Associated Press Republican scandal".
For those who don't want to recognize the bias, please disregard the fact that the first item returned on the first search expresses outrage that Mark Foley has been misidentified as a Democrat.
Brokaw pulled this stuff back in January
October 31, 2007 - 23:44 ET by nkviking75Back on Jan. 25 I posted an item on Mr. Brokaw's selective use of party labels when Senator Dan Sutton appeared before a committee of the South Dakota Senate. Sutton was implicated in a sex scandal, and censure was being considered.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.