Certainly a lot of it read like that, it did appear that people were drawing two dots and asking others to fill in their own lines. But, the article was written to show what kind of person she was. And it did it well. It was also written completely factually. It covered the book "banning" issue well, as well as the "fame" of whats-her-name. The woman who wrote the first piece denouncing Palin. Don't remember her name, can't be bothered finding it.
Palin is a small minded woman. If it takes thirty articles like this to wake America up to that fact, then hurry up and print them. If that bitch and her coward running mate get in our countries are going to be fucked too Mick. As is the rest of the world.
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
I think you are making two different points there, Lokd. Firstly you are implying that the article is fair because you know she really is like that. You 'know' this from other similar writing, I guess. My point is that, unless you have spent some time with her, you only think you know what Sarah Palin is like. If your opinion of her character is formed by paying attention to what her political enemies write about her, your view is likely to be a distorted one, and it is naive to believe otherwise.
Secondly, you appear to be saying that it is acceptable to package truth into lies in order to get it across. I believe lies always poison the truth in the end. If you sanction your people to tell 'noble' lies, you implicitly license your opponents to tell lies of their own. This would be a fool's stratagem in any circumstance, I think, but when the other side employs much better liars than you, it's a recipe for permanent defeat.
If the truth is that Palin is as bad as you say, then the truth will suffice, and there is no need for this kind of partisan bullshit. The demand for honest politicians must begin with a demand for honest political reporting.
I'm not a believer in packaging lies and it doesn't appear that the author of this article is either. There were no lies within, just various people giving their opinion on Palin. I think I made one point about the comments people made and then a separate point about the article in general. I base my judgement on Palin on what I know of her actions. It is only recently that I have read opinion pieces on her. The first few weeks only had factual reporting and that was enough to scare the shit out of me.
The truth never suffices in American politics. Truth is a fungible commodity that can be spun, stretched and distorted. It can be plated in the sub-standard metal of lies and hidden from the people who need to hear it most. The average voter suck what the Republican machine feeds them and the Democrats don't appear willing to challenge the lies. Instead a few comics and bloggers and a small handful of journalists try to spread the truth.
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
I think insinuations are a species of dishonesty - maybe not outright lies, but certainly kissing-cousins in Clan Traducement
Truth is a fungible commodity that can be spun, stretched and distorted.
I believe we underestimate the hardness of truth these days. We are taught to do so by the postmodern media bullshitters. "There's really no such thing as truth" is such a good excuse for getting rich by dishonest means.
I believe we underestimate the hardness of truth these days. We are taught to do so by the postmodern media bullshitters. "There's really no such thing as truth" is such a good excuse for getting rich by dishonest means.
Mick
Which is essentially what I said and that the truth, your "hard" truth must come out. For is it not said "The Truth shall make ye fret"?
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
your "hard" truth must come out.
No, the hardness is no protection against being buried in piles of steaming shit. This article is a such a pile and you are kissing the rectum that produced it. I suggest you stop that and take up a spade ...
So you posit that the truth is other than what is presented in the article? That Sarah Palin is not vindictive? That she does not have a 'win at any cost' mentality? That she is, in fact, just a misunderstood hockey-Mom from Wasilla goshdarnit.
__________________
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
Er, ... no, Lokky, those are just strawmen you've lined up to demonstrate how much support you have for your views.
I posit that truth is not as elusive as it is often said to be, that we cannot expect politicians to deal honestly with us if we don't demand honesty from our favourite political reporters, and that Palin regularly availing herself of a school grades appeals process is evidence of, well, nothing much at all ...
And I'm wondering why you are taking issue with me on any of this?
Partisan political discourse has always been ugly - and truth has suffered.
In the presidential contest of 1800 between Jefferson and Adams, Jefferson's followers accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
As the insults piled on, Adams was called a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.
(Perhaps this slanging match was more high-toned than what we get in modern elections).
luckily you won't be voting in this election, mick.
Bey doesn't know how I would vote. But then bey hasn't said he does. He's just insinuated a falsehood.
is anyone honestly surprised that mick would empathize with someone prone to vendettas?
Bey doesn't know where my empathy lies. But then bey hasn't said he does. He's just insinuated a falsehood.
No explicit lies, just soft, pungent, steaming insinuations. Thanks for the demo, bey!