I don't care who wrote it or to what end, but that's friggin hilarious and dead-on target.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/30/2010 9:39:59 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Much less an Al Jazeera article by an author who cites "David Corn" as a reliable authority on anything but beastiality. McCain is no arch conservative, but this is pure pus.
;-\
I’ll take John McCain over anything that the left has to offer any day. Say what you will, but he served his country and lived through hell. I can name at least 20 Senators currently serving that are much, much worse and never bothered to serve (or lied about where they served). Say what you will, but he did what his country asked him to do and didn’t wimp out. It has been time for him to go, but that’s up to AZ and apparently they like him.
Many on FR seem to increasingly believe only sources on “our” side should be posted.
This makes criticism much easier. You don’t have to point out a factual or logical flaw in the article itself, only that it is from the “wrong” side.
This is beginning to get ridiculous. If we only listen to each other, we can never learn much, and most especially we won’t become familiar with the arguments of the other side and therefore be able to more effectively refute them.
It is also an argument more widely associated with leftists. No need to refute the actual argument of a “right-winger.” Just pronounce him to be such and therefore both evil and wrong, and move on. Showed him!
I’ve even had posters claim a reference from wikipedia or Snopes is by definition unacceptable, since some material from those sites is indeed infected with liberalism. They generally don’t bother to post a more authoritative source as a refutation, just assume wiki is wrong and therefore they can continue to believe as they choose without any need to prove their point.
I will cheerfully agreed wikipedia should never be accepted as a final authority, especially on anything involving politics, but it does contain a great deal of good material and is often an excellent starting point for research.
he spent $21million to beat a flawed primary candidate who had about 10% of his war chest
McCain is a Scottish name, not Irish. And the so-called Scots-Irish were Scottish people who moved to Ireland and then to the U.S. But they fight, too. More, probably.
About the author:
Cliff Schecter is the President of Libertas, LLC, a progressive public relations firm, the author of the 2008 bestseller The Real McCain, and a regular contributor to The Huffington Post.
It looks like the writer is just a progressive writer who's work might be picked up by various publications - not a staff writer for Al Jazeera. I expect this article could be found elsewhere.
Sounds like ‘08 was really a lose-lose proposition....
A man of principle, he's not afraid to take tough positions, and he doesn't shy away from a fight. He's not worried about what's popular or partisan or personally advantageous. He's guided only by a desire to do what's right for the people he serves and the country he loves.
"I admired his tireless crusade against the old pork-barrel-spending, earmarking, backroom-dealing ways of D.C. that make a whole lot of us pretty ill," she said. "Today, those issues are at the heart of a conservative movement that's sweeping this country."It's a beautiful grass-roots movement that's putting government back on the side of the people. . . . It's the tea-party movement, and I want to clear the air right now. Everybody supporting John McCain here today, we are all part of that movement."
“As we traveled across the country, I got to know John McCain personally,” Palin wrote. “He's a man of faith, a man of honor and — most of all — a man of the people. He's deeply devoted to his state; the patriotic, hard-working Arizonans who call it home; and the founding principles they hold dear.”
“one of the finest public servants in this country.”
“Many on FR seem to increasingly believe only sources on “our” side should be posted.”
Worse, if you point out errors of fact, logic, or civility from one of “our” sources, you’re suddenly the “enemy yourself, to be zotted.
Do we have a policy to follow when posting obvious propaganda from Al Jazeera?
Seems when we use our enemy’s ally to smear our own “enemy”, something is awry.
Please advise.
Thank you.
What's the difference....???
Let's let FReeper's decide what's propaganda...or not, eh?
Of course, the Scots themselves were originally an Irish tribe that invaded and settled in what later became Scotland.
I don't care who wrote it or to what end, but that's friggin hilarious and dead-on target.
I feel sorry for his wife, but she chose him..
right...I figured that out.
so we have a progressive writer who strikes a chord with our enemies at AL Jazeera. and why would we want to have anything to do with either of these defilers of America
Bump! Completely agree Sherman!
Pure horsecrap, given that McCain has also expressed willingness to work with Obama. One can find plenty of reasons to rip into McCain without making up speculative claims that are a line drawn from a single starting point - and such a line can be drawn in any direction.
But don't let the facts get in the way of opinions of David Corn ... or Paultards who hate McCain mostly for being pro-Iraq-War.
Try reading it without your eyes glazed over in Paultard glee. You might spot a few glaring variances from the truth if you did.
But, then again, you show a history of not being discriminating about where you post from - as long as you like the conclusions drawn, you don't care how they got there.
I think I'm missing something. When did someone logically show where the article was factually incorrect? Or even logically refute the opinion of the author?
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.