Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Worse Than Mud (by Danielle Allen, Stalker of Freepers)
The Washington Post ^ | Thursday, July 10, 2008 | Danielle Allen

Posted on 07/09/2008 10:07:48 PM PDT by kristinn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-230 next last
To: Ratblaster
The Muslim Magic Negro must be feeling the heat.

Bingo.

She writes: "When lies work, why not lie?". Now we must wonder whose advice Hussein is taking as he attempts to obliterate the record of his prior positions. Can't be Danielle. She's a defender of truth.

61 posted on 07/09/2008 11:25:49 PM PDT by Stentor (Obama supporters. Letting the little void do the thinking for the big void.The Muslim Magic Negro mu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
calumny n. 1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation. 2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander. [calumnitize v. To make the opponent the issue to divert attention from the truth.]
62 posted on 07/09/2008 11:30:39 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

There used to be several people hosting the fake photo of BUSH with Kerry and Fonda. One that the left doesn’t mention...

If you google search for images with the words bush kerry fonda, you’ll find a thumbnail of the image on one site, the URL may have changed. But the image existed contemporary to the discredited fake.

And that fake still gets them milage to blur the history on the real one.


63 posted on 07/09/2008 11:35:44 PM PDT by weegee (Maybe 143 days wasnÂ’t enough experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: txflake

Her hit piece gives gravitas to calumny.


64 posted on 07/09/2008 11:40:19 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire

sat·ire –noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

[Origin: 1500–10; < L satira, var. of satura medley, perh. fem. deriv. of satur sated (see saturate)]

—Synonyms 1. See irony1. 2, 3. burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty.

Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose: Swift’s satire of human pettiness and bestiality. Lampoon refers to a form of satire, often political or personal, characterized by the malice or virulence of its attack: lampoons of the leading political figures.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

satire - noun
witty language used to convey insults or scorn; “he used sarcasm to upset his opponent”; “irony is wasted on the stupid”; “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own”—Jonathan Swift [syn: sarcasm]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

“Comedy has to be based on truth. You take the truth and you put a little curlicue at the end.” ~Sid Caesar


65 posted on 07/09/2008 11:42:15 PM PDT by weegee (Maybe 143 days wasnÂ’t enough experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
Her hit piece gives gravitas to calumny.

Ay yi yi! All these words are giving me a hegemony. I'm going to bed. GOOD NIGHT!

66 posted on 07/09/2008 11:44:48 PM PDT by weegee (Hi there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

The author is a useful idiot. Next thing you know, she’ll be complaining about this “faked” image of the Gore/Lieberman 2000 campaign logo which also “emerged” on the infamous Free Republic site:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=sore%2Floserman&gbv=2

Bwahahahaha!

Too late. The damage is already done.


67 posted on 07/09/2008 11:58:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: library user
The green smiley face is on the Snopes server too.

That's because you've already downloaded the anti-hot link image and the image is not getting refreshed. You can either go to the web site, right click on the image and click "view image", or you can go to the website and hold down the ctrl key while clicking on the refresh button. That should bring the image up.
68 posted on 07/10/2008 12:08:51 AM PDT by fr_freak (Are we at rock bottom yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Thanks for the information about talented satire.

Is that a hint for me, don't try it at home?

69 posted on 07/10/2008 12:10:11 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Congratulations Danielle, you display almost the same amount of chutzpah as your new God, Obeymao. Idiot.


70 posted on 07/10/2008 12:10:44 AM PDT by smedley64 (Dems go all-in every 4 years with a 7-2 offsuit marxist, hoping to hit the flop big just one time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
While there are times and places for anonymity, it should be the exception.

Wow, that is pretty bold considering how often the media fight to protect "whistleblowers". These people are in fact felons leaking privileged information not whistleblowers.

71 posted on 07/10/2008 12:22:01 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
None intended. Just as malicious intent did not appear to be behind the composite image, a legitimate image already existed.

It was a weak effort that everyone suspects was by someone who had created much funnier images and signed them.

The definition is for Danielle and any other Nancy Drews who think that they are blowing the lid of some giant secret or “dirty tricks” campaign. Denying that the Corbis photo exists is a lie of omission on her part (either willfully or ignorance of the subject).

Removing the hoaxed photo from the context of the thread saps the humor behind it. One thumbnail I saw on google even had the caption removed, making it a NEW composite image because it had been altered along the way to remove some of the telltale details.

It's like taking Henny Youngman’s “Take my wife, please!” as an invitation to adultery or kidnapping. It is the segue between the opener, “a lot of people yadda yadda... take my wife (implied “for example” but he follows it up with an appeal) please!” And then whatever observational joke he was making would continue.

“take my wife, please” on its own is not laugh out loud funny and can be seen as a cruel statement about the spouse.

The humor deprived are the Left who have no problems mocking the president or “Jeebus” or Christians or whatever but get near one of their sacred cows and watch out.

This time around there is to be no mocking fearless leader.

72 posted on 07/10/2008 12:35:05 AM PDT by weegee (Hi there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
A right to free speech is no excuse for lying.

This will come as a HUGE shock to "progressives".

73 posted on 07/10/2008 12:37:01 AM PDT by highlander_UW (illegal alien is to an undocumented worker as a drug dealer is to an unlicensed pharmacist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Hmmm, let me see, the Swift Boat ads were generated by EX NAVY MEN WHO FOUGHT WITH KERRY!!!..not Freepers or other conservatives. These people knew Kerry intimately. The leader of the Swift Boaters, John O’Neill, admitted to voting for Al Gore in 2000.


74 posted on 07/10/2008 12:51:38 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
"A right to free speech is no excuse for lying."

Unless you are a leftwing moonbat. And what about Al Gores Glo-Bull warming film? You don't see Danielle Allen crying about the entire global warming BS scam either. Typical leftwing nut.

75 posted on 07/10/2008 12:51:39 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Which is odd because the only OWNER of the fake is the guy who created it, not the guy who’s photos he used. In the absence of a court order, the ownership of the image does not transfer.

The creator of the fake composite would have to come forward and assert copyright. And then prove it, no mean feat for an image that's been circulated around the world anonymously.

He'd be on the hook for infringing on the original photos -- despite your assertion, the original photographers do have a copyright interest in derivative works, and could claim substantial damages if they can successfully argue that the fake harmed their reputation or the salability of their genuine photos.

The Lefties at Snopes got a notice from Corbis which made them revise their copyright information but I doubt they PAY Corbis for the image that they host on their own servers.

They might have paid Corbis; I don't know, and neither do you. They also would have a pretty credible fair use claim, because the photo itself is the topic of a legitimate news story.

76 posted on 07/10/2008 12:52:35 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Southack

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp


77 posted on 07/10/2008 12:52:40 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

WOO-HOO! We can now cite AP publications again, eh? Did they back down?


78 posted on 07/10/2008 12:54:44 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Ms. Allen is very selective in what she writes about, sort of like she may be trying her own hand at “calumny.”

The photo she mentions was indeed photo-shopped, as was noted by several here and on the Swift Vets forum, something she totally ignores.

She also seems incapable of showing where or when any Liberal Democrat engages in their own “calumny,” as was done against President Bush ever since he won the election in 2000.

Such biased writing as she engages in reduces her scholastic abilities to that of little more than a political hack.

79 posted on 07/10/2008 1:00:37 AM PDT by DakotaRed (Don't you wish you had supported a conservative when you had the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
the original photographers do have a copyright interest in derivative works

The may have an "interest" but they can not protect their work from satire. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc

80 posted on 07/10/2008 1:00:54 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-230 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson