Kerry and Murtha-Birds of a Feather...

Abject fatuity, nothing more. Wow, carpro: that was pathetic. Please show me where I "attacked the author" in this thread. Until you do, stop bearing false witness.

Here is what you said:

Now, let's take a look at what was said at MediaMatters:

The article actually references the interviews in question, and reproduces the entire quote in the article. Like I said previously, you would have known that had you actually read the article.

Ah yes: yet another claim made by you without any proof or example. Are we seeing a pattern here? Anyone familiar with MediaMatters knows that they report anything they see that is not accurate. One can even do a search on the website for "New York Times" or "Washington Post" to see for themselves. That is true regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact.

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

Round and round she goes,
where she stops
nobody knows

 

Everyone who has ever visited that site knows this is not true. More abject fatuity, carpro.

No, you are utterly and completely wrong here, carpro.
This is not a case of misdirection, it is a case of mirepresentation.
MediaMatters CLEARLY showed that Bozell misrepresented what was said. They reported what was written by him, then showed the actual quotes referenced, showing them in their entirety. As I have stated prior to this post, this is a FACT regardless of whether or not you choose to admit it.

Yep, I hear Sean Hannity say this all the time. But everyone who has bothered to go to that site and has read the article knows that you are not representing MediaMatters accurately.

Exactly who is the person "sipping the koolaid" here? Every post you offer clearly demonstrates to everyone the answer to that question.

To borrow from former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

Can you give an example of misdirection on the page they linked to?

 

Liberal Faith?
Oh puhleeze Carpro you can do better than that.

 

Carpro, you are just spinning your wheels on this one.CNSNews re hashing some old stories and dirt diggin only serve to appeas the Extemist Right-Wing nut crowd.

 

I don't agree that they are facts necessarily(They could be factual) as much as much I suspicion the reason that they reported it in the first place. What prompted them to write this story?It was Murtha speaking out against President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.CNSNews therefore made it their mission to dig up dirt on Murtha so as to put him is his place and to attempt to stop him from continuing on speaking out against Bush.
BTW, Bozell owns CNSNews. Why would he approve to run this story. It has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with keeping those who oppose Bush's handling of the war quiet.

 

Bozell twisted statements to claim Murtha has "been anti-war for years"
In his November 23 nationally syndicated column, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III claimed that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) has "been anti-war for years." Bozell, however, omitted key details from the examples he cited of Murtha's supposedly "anti-war" rhetoric that directly refute his claim. In fact, Murtha, who recently voiced support for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, was a staunch advocate of the Iraq war but also an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's handling of the conflict -- positions on two separate questions, which Bozell wrongly conflated.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511230008

What was the popular phrase in the nineties when Clinton was in office? Oh yeah, it was character matters. Bozell and his new service take a tiny portion of facts and blow it up into distortion. Don't get sucked into agreeing with all CNSNews news stories. Sure CNSNews reports some factual items but they use that to get the viewers confidence and trust, once they have that then they can report anything as being truthful without being questioned about it.

 

That, friend, is such a true statement!

I have no problem with any veteran who served in any part of our armed forces at any time and any place regardless of the reason so long as their service was honorable and their conduct befitting of that label.

Such service, however, while absolutely deserving of respect makes their political opinions no more or no less correct.

The fact that some misrepresent or misuse their military record does disappoint me. The fact that some told or still tell lies about the typical veteran's service - especially in Viet Nam - greatly offends me.

Persons who signed up for a particular component or branch or specialty of service to avoid being drafted into another are not draft-dogers. They performed service their country deemed important else they would not have been accepted for those assignments.

 

The bait was presented to Dan Rather, he swallowed it. Ol' Dan was Rather anxious to get the goods on Bush which led to his downfall.
So Ol' Dan's motives was what caused him to present the story. Without motive there wouldn't had been the erroneous reporting by Ol' Dan.
This also holds true with CNSNews, they have a motive to discredit Ol' Jack which led to all that dirt diggin. If CNSNews didn't have a motive they wouldn't have even bothered with the report. Someone's got to control this guy so CNSNews is doing what it does best,assassinate Murtha's character.

 

I sure don't miss old Dan Rathernot!

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you feel that making unsubstantiated claims that everyone knows are false is fun? Wow.....

Oops, there goes your credibility, carpro....

Okay, carpro, here we go:
You made a claim, now prove it.
Let me say that again, as you seemingly are having trouble with this:
You made a claim, now prove it.

You really do look foolish here, carpro.

Sheer and utter foolishness. This simply reinforces the fact that you haven't bothered to go to the link provided in the response. The proof is right there, and if you have been to the site, then you know it. So, either:
1. You never went to the link, which clearly explains your repeated denial of the truth.
2. You know that your comments have been proven wrong, and you are refusing to acknowledge what everyone else knows.

Oops, there goes your credibility, carpro.

Wait a minute, I thought this was "real fun." Wasn't that the first sentence you posted?

Oops, there goes your credibility, carpro.....

That wasn't even a nice try. Bozell's comments were referenced, and they were clearly refuted at MediaMatters, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge the obvious.

Oops, there goes your credibility, carpro.....

Regards anyway - I truly am embarrassed for you,
BiR

 

Carpro has plenty of credibility with me and he has no reason to be embarrassed.