Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ottopilot, can you understand that conservatives posting about Jeremiah Wright are influenced and are replicating, verbatim, the anti Obama motivated, crap propaganda distributed by www.townhall.com staff and Salem Comm. radio talk show hosts paid to distribute the identical message, and that the organization and ownership of these Salem Media properties is the <h3>Exact opposite of a grassroots political organization, such as moveon.org?</h3> Can you grasp that difference at all..... on opposing sides, a closed, super secretive, conservative evangelical republican corporate monolith that actually is out to minimize the popular vote, and the other, an open, grassroots, populist driven and largely funded organization?
Can you see that it is vastly more difficult to post verbatim, the slurs and arguments that are distributed SO OFTEN, by Salem Comm. staff, websites, and broadcasts, and be take seriously, than it is to post opinions that are shaped and supported by populist ideas and independent research?
An example of the difference is the series of posts I have done about the origins of John McCain's initial post Navy employment, campaign financing, and his $50 to $100 million personal fortune. I found, on my own, 30 year old newspaper articles detailing the organized crime career of McCain's father in law. I posted photo images of the newspaper pages where I found the details I then transcribed in my posts.
I criticized powerclown and others for simply posting the message about Obama's pastor that was distributed by Salem Comm. in the exact same words. |
As I said regarding George Soros and moveon.org, the "likes" of such, implying others (too). George Soros has a highly diversified support mechanism for is interests. He is an aggressive, wealthy, and highly influential force in liberal politics. And I argue that moveon.org is one of many politically and financially aligned partisans. Just as they do, the Republicans do.
While powerclown and others quote a source you disapprove, does it make any of the contained facts un-factual?
I grasp that most of us quote sources that often run close to themes reflecting our own points of view. That's fine. We entertain all contributions. But your criticisms read much like the pot calling the kettle black. While some here may have taken a less intellectual approach in gathering and presenting their unoriginal argument, there are still facts contained that are not to my knowledge disproved. Some are indeed junk.