Leader of group cited in Roof ‘manifesto’ donated to top Republicans

[carpro]

Let me rephrase that then:

Could you have titled your thread "Cruz returns donation given by hate monger" and would it have been equally true?

There were two facts in the OP. That white supremacy feller gave money to Cruz's campaign. That is fact one. Cruz's campaign gave it back. That is fact two. You chose to emphasize the first fact. I prefer to focus on the latter. No fights, no troubling undertones, no hidden agenda. :thumbs:

You're wasting your time.

The truth and facts make no difference to zaac's trollish agenda to disrupt and create turmoil.

 

[padredurand]

And my point again is I didn't title it. I posted the title that the AUTHOR gave it.

You authored the thread and posted the article. You had the freedom to call your thread anything you wanted. You could have called it "Free Chocolate Cookies" if you wanted. That would have been disingenuous but I've seen worse here.

You were simply following the old newspaper adage, "If it bleeds it leads." Blog titles and thread titles have, for the most part, replaced headlines. Headlines are supposed to grab the reader's attention and draw them into the story. Your author's title did all the right things to draw attention to his article. Roof is on the tip of everyone's tongue right now because of his heinous act. Manifesto is an overused buzz word that conjures up countless images of evil. Two evils preceding the words top Republicans. Pretty good as far as headlines go. He (and you) could have chopped off the Leader of and still got your point across.

The original author set the tone for his piece and admitted his bias in the headline. You have given yourself a layer of deniability by saying you merely copied the title of the original piece. Well played, Zaac. It is obvious you agree with the tone and bias but you left yourself an out, just in case it didn't go well.

 

[Zaac]

You authored the thread and posted the article. You had the freedom to call your thread anything you wanted. You could have called it "Free Chocolate Cookies" if you wanted. That would have been disingenuous but I've seen worse here.

And as I said, the vast majority of the time that I post an article, it's got the same title that the author gave it.

I posted an article that already had a title and that is the title I used

You were simply following the old newspaper adage, "If it bleeds it leads." Blog titles and thread titles have, for the most part, replaced headlines. Headlines are supposed to grab the reader's attention and draw them into the story. Your author's title did all the right things to draw attention to his article. Roof is on the tip of everyone's tongue right now because of his heinous act. Manifesto is an overused buzz word that conjures up countless images of evil. Two evils preceding the words top Republicans. Pretty good as far as headlines go. He (and you) could have chopped off the Leader of and still got your point across.

Nope, I was simply following the adage "don't recreate the wheel". It has a title and that's the title I used.
The original author set the tone for his piece and admitted his bias in the headline. You have given yourself a layer of deniability by saying you merely copied the title of the original piece. Well played, Zaac. It is obvious you agree with the tone and bias but you left yourself an out, just in case it didn't go well.[/QUOTE]

 

[padredurand]

And as I said, the vast majority of the time that I post an article, it's got the same title that the author gave it.

I posted an article that already had a title and that is the title I used

We have a little store (DeJohn's) down the road that sells milk for anywhere between 75 cents to a dollar cheaper than anyplace else. They also sell cigarettes, beer and magazines in plain brown wrappers they keep under the counter.

Now the 5 year-old drinks his share of milk and it is my job to keep the icebox stocked so I buy it down the road at DeJohn's. What if some news feller ran out of story ideas and decided to interview padre? He could entitle his piece Local Vicar Supports Alcohol, Tobacco and Girly Magazine Trade or PopPop Saves a Buck on Milk.

Nobody really gives a flying rip if I'm buying milk for the boy. There is nothing sensational about it. It won't sell inches, minutes or bytes. It's a dull, mundane story. Cruz sends the money back. Yawn.

Put a preacher inside the same building as vice and folks are already to hear about the porn-addicted, drunk preacher with emphysema. Same thing with your thread title. Folks get to connecting unconnected dots and conclude that top Republicans like to go to Black churches and shoot folk.

 

[Salty]

So are we to assume that the Z-Man will keep doing the same thing ( using linked titles for BB thread titles).

If so, then do we take it with a grain of salt.

 

[righteousdude2]

Yep, he was bred by the Republican Right as it continues to spew the same old stereotypes.

Yes, so what? How many Arab/Muslim's donate to Hillary? How many perverts from television and movies donate to the Democrats through Obama? Isn't one of Bill's top givers a noted pedophile, owning and island Bill goes to?

 

[carpro]

So are we to assume that the Z-Man will keep doing the same thing ( using linked titles for BB thread titles).

If so, then do we take it with a grain of salt.

You have to take everything he posts with a grain of salt, sourced or not. He's thoroughly dishonest and won't hesitate to lie or mislead. Just remember what his real agenda is, to stir up controversy. Whatever it takes.

It would actually be better if everyone put him on ignore, but we won't. We all secretly enjoy the controversy.