Posted on 09/27/2011 4:46:27 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW
Oh. Well I haven’t had TV for 4 years so I don’t see him. Haven’t missed him either. Sorry that you’re “stuck” with him. :-P
Overall this whole thing is working against them. They may get a ‘boost’ in ratings/sales/viewers etc ‘now’ but more people are realizing the truth every day...that the MSM is a corrupt wing of the DNC.
I have had recent conversations with people who ‘once’ swore that the Newspaper/TV “couldn’t say things that were untrue”. They really believed that once...and there are millions just like that across America.
But those same people I talked to are now fully aware and trust nothing they read or watch thanks to the lib/dem/msm overreach in pushing the BS - whether it be RE Palin, or the memes about ‘racist’ TEA parties etc.
It’s collapsing around their necks day by day, bit by BS brick.
Maybe they consulted with Obama and he told them to tell Sarah "Don't call my bluff!"
Crown is a subsidiary of Random House and the parent company in the end will have something to say and will determine the outcome. Also, Brietbart reportedly has more correspondence favorable to Sarah. McSlime may claim she's a public figure but her family is due some modicum of privacy not withstanding that they knowingly went ahead and published when all they had was rumor and hateful gossip.
Only problem is, still nobody wants to buy the thing, and it's going to cost them multiples of the value of the free press involved. In fact, when it comes time for a judge to determine the amount of damage$ due the Palins, the amount of press the rag received will contribute to that eventual total.
LMAO!!!!
Screw 'em to the wall, 'Cuda!
8^D
McGinniss is a dishonest pig.
That was what was alleged; it has nothing to do with the outcome.
McGinniss agreed to write a book about MacDonald's attempt to clear his name, after he was accused of killing his pregnant wife and two small children. The resulting civil trail showed that McGinniss had regularly deceived MacDonald to ensure his protagonist kept talking for his book. He also told MacDonald not to talk to other journalists interested in his story.
Today, a trio of authors says that the unscrupulous McGinnis portrayed in "The Journalist and the Murderer" is very real. They allege that the bestselling journalist leaked a manuscript of their tell-all Palin book - The New York Times bestseller "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin" - to destroy any chance it would be published and compete with his own forthcoming Palin exposé, "The Rogue." McGinniss admits he received and distributed the manuscript, but maintains that the idea that he did so to hurt the authors' chance at publication is absurd because the authors were nobodies,
McGinniss is a dishonest pig.
If he had written something unfavorable about someone you hated, he would be your hero...
You’re defending a liar.
I’m not defending anyone; I’m pointing out that you’ve played a bit fast and lose with the facts of the McGuniess lawsuit.
The facts are in post 48 and McGinniss is a liar. And you are defending him.
I asked one of my friends who works at the local Barnes and Noble if they'd sold any copies, and he thinks they might have sold one.
Actually, the statement ("We are confident that the reporting in 'The Rogue,' is solid, reliable, and well-substantiated. We stand by our publication and our author") is boilerplate and will have little bearing on events.
The outcome of the pending lawsuit will hang on what Applebaum & staff did pre-publication. The pre-pub record will hang them or absolve them. Current statements are P.R. only and have no additional legal weight.
Obviously, the very act of publishing the book, by definition, is already a public declaration that they stake their reputation on the reporting and stand by the book and the author. That's what publication means. So Applebaum's statement merely repeats what's already known.
I think that is an unfair assumption to make about anyone. Neither hate nor malicious slander is welcome here:
First, you can't assume that dislike of or disagreement with someone politically equates to hate. Most people on this site are the product of the Judeo-Christian tradition and therefore don't believe in true hate as a matter of principle. But we do believe what we believe, and when someone goes off the rails, we are not afraid to point it out. That is not hate. That’s just being a good friend.
Second, I know of no one here, barring a few notorious exceptions, who actually wants anyone slandered or misrepresented, whether friend or foe. That isn’t how conservatism works. Truth is a signature issue for conservatives, because truth is the only way you get things to work in the real world. It's a habit of mind, and I have found it here in abundance.
BTW, just so you know, there are salacious rumors about other candidates, but good luck trying to find them being repeated here. It’s not happening. At least not that I’ve run across. Your theory is contradicted by reality. Sorry.
I didn’t bother answering his charge because what I was complaining about was that McGinniss lied to a man convicted of murdering his wife and two young children. That’s a pretty heinous crime. But I don’t think McDonald should be lied to no matter WHAT he’s accused of doing.
But none of those words are synonyms for TRUE.
Gonna watch Sarah tonight? She’s on Greta 15 minutes from now.
I don’t have TV.
Good point!
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.