« Famous People Who Fled To Argentina | Main | Sanford and Ensign Called on Clinton to Resign »

Fox News Lies and Calls Republican Gov. Sanford a Democrat

Republican Governor Mark Sanford lied to his staff about where he was going -- and now Fox News lies to their conservative audience (who isn't smart enough and well-read enough to know they're being lied to) about Sanford political affiliation:

sanford-d.jpg

For those of you on the right with room temperature IQs and 15 minute memories, your beloved "Fair and Balanced" Fox News did the same thing with Republican pedophile Congressman Mark Foley.

foley.jpg

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.7/5 (7 votes cast)


Comments (53)

LiberalNightmare:

Its a natural mistake - hes acting like a democrat.

Lee Ward:

Mention "room temperature IQs" and look who shows up...

Yeah, that's the reason Fox lied, LN - they're too stupid to get the facts right, and they let their bias determine their story instead.

DaveD:

I have been trying to put my finger on something here at the Blue and it was not until this situation with Sanford arose that it dawned on me. Paul seems to - for the most part - focus on posts that deal with issues. Rarely devolves into the personal. You, Lee, seem to specialize in focusing on individuals. Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean and now Mark Sanford. You go quiet for periods when there is no Republican in the news to destroy, but something like this and it's like your whole reason for living regains its clarity. Just an observation.

Lee Ward:

Looks like I'm inside your head, DaveD - just like Gay Tea.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

I'm more topical and news-driven than Paul, and I definitely focus on Palin and other ass-hated Republican newsmakers who screw up, like Prejean. Their hypocrisy is a favorite subject of mine.

If you don't understand those words ask your mom to explain it to you.

See you in your dreams...

pvd:

Wow. Someone's off his meds.

A homophobic slur on this, the most tolerant of the liberal websites.

Then a personal attack on a poster rather than address the point.

Yup, it's Wizbangblue.

To keep it topical, do you ever tackle the "ass-hated" democratic newsmakers who screw up like Edwards?

Didn't think so.

Jay Tea:

Gay Tea? Aw, shucks. I'd be insulted -- if I considered that an insult. (Unlike, say, Perez Hilton.) Or if it had the slightest resemblance to reality. Instead, it's worth a dismissive snort.

But to answer pvd's question, yes, he does -- let's look at some quotes from Mr. Ward's past:

Barack whined all day yesterday, following the lead of his handlers at MoveOn.org and DailyKos as they whined incessantly about the unfair (gufaw) treatment of BabyObama during the ABC Debate Wednesday night....

BabyBarack had a free ride for twenty debates, and when the questioning got tough once he squeals like a stuck pig. Absolutely incredible.

If the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the Obama White House I hope Barack's wet nurse answers it. April 18, 2008.

After nearly running off the stage following a refreshingly earnest effort by news reporters pressing Obambi for answers on his connection to indicated Tony Rezko a week ago, Barack is once again avoiding the press. March 13, 2008.

If you haven't been the direct recipient of a Barack Obama lie then hang on, your turn will come. He'll get around to lying to everyone sooner or later in his quest to be Prez. Here's where he lied to the nice people of Iowa back in December, 2007.

Desperate to emerge from the packed Democratic field victorious, Barack apparently felt compelled to twist the truth with regards to his dear Mother. He was talking to the heartland of America, so it's time for Barack to lie about his mother and about his religious upbringing, in order to dispel rumors and innuendo surrounding his Islamic background...

And here's what we find out four months later, unearthed by the Chicago Tribune regarding his Mother's formative years, spent in Mercer Island, Washington, not Kansas...

She was just a Christian girl from Kansas? No, in reality she was an atheist whose formative years were spent in the state of Washington.

Aww, close enough for government work, eh, America? April 7, 2008

Welcome. I hope you're privileged enough to live in one of the Obama states, because if you don't, you just don't count. Remember Barack's speech - that there are no "red" states and "blue" states, just the United States of America? That's just more BS. In Barack Obama's world there are Clinton states, and there are Obama states, and the Clinton states like Michigan and Florida don't count, and forget about voting in a primary if you haven't already -- your vote doesn't matter to Barack Obama. Also April 7, 2008.

Barack Obama strikes me as the epitome of "all hat and no cattle."...

And as hard as some Democrats tried to get Obama fully vetted during the primary process, a complacent and mesmerized press just stood by on the sidelines, cheering him on instead. That will all change if he's successful at gaining the nomination...

Obama's recent buffonery demonstrates that his mad diplomatic skillz are, once again, all talk and no substance - and this is exactly the kind of issue that the press will use to skewer Obambi in the general election...

So Barack claims that "nobody reached out" but the memo shows that's not true, and we also see that Obambi, after days of denial... responds with "That was the information I had at the time.".

So did his advisers lie to him, or did he shoot off his mouth before fully investigating, or did he know the truth and just try to bluff the complacent press again? March 4, 2008.

Obama chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee started things off last week, and now we have Obama's Senior Foreign Policy adviser declaring that Hillary is right -- Barack Obama is not qualified to answer that red phone at 3 am.

Really, that's what she said.

It's not surprising that Rice declared Clinton wasn't qualified -- the Obama folks are following and playing by the Queen's Rules -- Queen Hillary makes the rules and Obama seems quite willing to play by those rules -- so after Clinton delcared Obama not ready of course Obama's camp would parrot that line and throw it right back at Clinton.

Obambi's lack of creative thinking aside, despite his previous months of declaring that he was going to elevate the discourse and stay above it all -- that plan has been thrown out the window in a panic, and Barack is slinging mud just like the rest of them.His talk of raising the discourse was just that --- all talk. Bullshit, nothing more. March 7, 2008.

The Obama gift that keeps on giving -- to the Clinton campaign -- is his poor choice of advisers that keep leaking the fact that Barack Obama, the mighty man of change, has not been truthful in his campaign statements to the American people...

Sooner or later the Barack Obama campaign had to rely on something other than just plagiarized speeches, and we're seeing the painful result of that. March 7, 2008.

Woops. I don't think this was in the game plan -- I suspect nowhere in the Obama blueprint for success will you find the words "Dis America and get both Republicans and Democrats pissed off at you," but she's trying.

Part 1 - Insert Foot in Mouth

"For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country"

Of course it was no doubt meant as a gratuitous slam at Bill Clinton's administration. Poor Michele Obama only becomes proud of her country when they support her hubby as President - I guess it's obvious where her priorities lie.

Part 2 - Try to straighten this mess out and, uhm, not do a very good job of it. Once again, it's all about them (even though she says it isn't) - it's about her and her pride and Barack and their children blah, blah, blah...

And of course we all recall just how much of a Democrat Michelle Obama... isn't.

...unless it's Barack of course, he's the only Democrat she can be proud of. February 21, 2008.

Barack Obama isn't keeping his campaign promises...

Obama's campaign walked back from a proposal the Illinois senator made last year to accept public financing for the general election if the Republican nominee also agreed to do so. Such a commitment would level the financial playing field with the apparent GOP nominee, John McCain, whose campaign has had a harder time raising money than Obama, who has broken all fundraising records.

Obama's campaign said accepting public financing was an option he would consider if he wins the nomination, rather than a hard pledge.

Clinton advisers seized on the apparent shift, suggesting highlighted Obama's pattern of making promises to voters and revising them later as circumstances change.

"When a campaign is based on promises and wonderful oratory, let's take a look at those promises," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters on a conference call.

Obama made a campaign promise which he apparently has no problem breaking. Is it his inexperience that has him making these promises without thinking it all the way through? (If so, can we afford to have Obama negotiating with world leaders if he'll be making promises he can't or won't keep?)

Or is it that he in fact had no real commitment to keeping the promise? It was just something he said in the rah-rah enthusiasm of the moment?

No wonder he's afraid to debate Clinton all out, he keeps making mistakes. Wolfson points to this debate gaffe as another example of Obama flip-flopping:

Barack Obama: "I NEVER said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer..."

He's all things to all people, just ask him - he'll tell you whatever it is you want to hear... even if the words aren't his own. February 20, 2008.

It may just be a smattering of coincidental facts whose convergence will be difficult if not impossible to decipher, and these days there are signs that the mainstream media is so solidly behind Barack Obama that it's almost assured they'll never look into this, but there are several items popping up on my radar this weekend relating to Obama and some of his campaign contributors and advisers, and ties back to Syria, Islamic fundamentalism, and the Nation of Islam, that are puzzling enough to put out there for discussion.

Item #1: Long-time Barack Obama supporter and campaign insider Tony Rezko was born in Syria and raised among Muslims.

Rezko traveled the world for five years putting together business and real estate deals for famed-boxer Muhammed Ali.

"My role model in life is my father and Muhammad Ali," Rezko says.

Item #2: Muhammed Ali [aka Cassius Clay] is a Muslim.

On Friday, March 6, 1964, Malcolm X took Clay on a guided tour of the United Nations building (for a second time). Malcolm X announced that Clay would be granted his "X." That same night, Elijah Muhammad recorded a statement over the phone to be played over the radio that Clay would be renamed Muhammad (one who is worthy of praise) Ali (fourth rightly guided caliph).

Elijah Muhammad led the Black Muslim and Nation of Islam movement in the United States from 1934 to 1975.

Item #3: Tony Rezko still has ties to Syria - [ABC-10/12/06]

Law enforcement sources believe that Rezko may be in his native Syria. He is know to have investments, real estate holdings and relatives in metro Damascus, the capital of the Middle Eastern nation where Tony Rezko was born.

Item #4: Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski traveled to Damascus, Syria last Tuesday.

A foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama is scheduled to arrive in Syria today as the leader of a RAND Corp. delegation.

Zbigniew Brzezinski will travel to Damascus for meetings as part of a trip Syria's official Cham News agency described as an "important sign that the end of official dialogue between Washington and Damascus has not prevented dialogue with important American intellectuals and politicians."

Item #5: Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser during the time that the ayatollahs rose to power, and was in office when Iran became an anti-western Islamic state. Brzeninski saw no threat in this.

On February 2, 1979, Brzezinski wrote a memo to the president claiming that Islamic fundamentalism was not an imminent threat and would not gain prominence in the Middle East.

and

Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan [...] This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan[...]

Item #7: In 2005 Tony Rezko's company Rezmar partnered on a deal to build a nuclear power plant in Iraq.

Rezmar Corp., a real estate development company controlled by Tony Rezko, a controversial confidant of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, entered into a joint venture with a British firm in a $150-million deal to build a power plant in Iraq.

Item #8: Tony Rezko's Rezmar Corporation has been implicated in the FBI investigation of Rezko.

In one case, sources said, {FBI Mole John Thomas] told authorities he saw a Rezmar employee pass an envelope with a visible wad of bills to an unidentified [Illinois Governor] Blagojevich aide.[...] Sources said Thomas also logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov. Blagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

At this point these facts are nothing more than pieces of a puzzle.

Maybe the Tony Rezko trial, with jury selection set to begin March 3rd, will help put these pieces of the puzzle together. The trial is expected to last at least three months.

Related stories and links:

* Obama Revealed in Rezko Corruption Investigation - link
* Dem. Candidates on Nuclear Energy - link
* Obama Fable #1: That he's a Progressive - link

Sidebar: Tony Rezko apparently has ties back to neocon circles as well.

Rezko cochaired a major fundraiser for President Bush's campaign in 2003.

Puzzling... If Rezko is raising money for Bush then obviously Rezko isn't supporting Obama because he supports liberal causes -- liberals don't raise money for Bush -- so what is the quid pro quo for Rezko in supporting Obama? What did he get in return?

Another Update: From Rezko Watch:

James Bone and Dominic Kennedy reported February 25, 2008, in the The Times (UK) that on May 23, 2005--just three weeks before Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Rita Rezko, the wife of indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, closed on their same-day real estate deals on June 15, 2005--Fintrade Services SA, a Panamanian company related to Iraqi billionaire businessman Nadhmi Auchi, "lent" $3.5 million to Tony Rezko.

Bone and Kennedy wrote that their investigation "raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain's wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago."

It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.

And now for a few trivia questions...

Bonus Trivia Question #1: Leo Strauss, widely considered by many to be the one of the top founding father of the neoconservative movement in the United States, was a Political Science professor from 1949-1969 at what prominent American University?

Answer: The University of Chicago.

Bonus Trivia Question #2: Barack Obama is a Senior Lecturer (on leave) at what the law school at what prominent American University?

Answer: The University of Chicago. February 16, 2008.


All quotes taken from the archives of Wizbang Blue, accessible by clicking on Mr. Ward's name at the top of any article. Nearly all of them come from the third page of articles.

Gee, I wonder if this comment will get deleted, and me banned once again? On the one hand, it's not terribly on-topic and tremendously embarrassing to the author of the article. On the other hand, it's just his own words, cut and pasted from his own articles...

J.

Jay Tea:

Dang, messed up the formatting. The entire section from "February 12, 2008" to "February 20, 2008" is from a February 20, 2008 article entitled "Obama and Rezko: Is there a Syrian and Islamic Connection?" by Mr. Ward.

My apologies.

J.

Lee Ward:

"Gee, I wonder if this comment will get deleted, and me banned once again?"

Your off-topic personal attack, which violates the commenting TOS that you used to enforce at Wizbang, is just another example of how far off balance you've gotten Jay. But I've been inside your head, pulling your strings, ever since the very first day I commented at Wizbang.

And now I blog here and you don't -- imagine that.

No, Jay - you're here to stay... my play thing, my toy.

I'm inside your head and enjoying it - except for the rubber ducky wallpaper... lol.

Jay Tea:

Precisely how is quoting your own words, with citations, a "personal attack?"

For the record, I actually agree with most of what you said and I quoted. The difference is, apparently, that I still agree with them, and you consider quoting them a "personal attack."

I'd offer up the "h-word," but I don't wanna pile on too much.

But back on topic... Fox's occasional habit of misidentifying politicians is trivial. It's always caught, and always corrected. Far more significant, and similar, is the game of "Name That Party."

Read a mainstream account of a scandal-wracked politician. If their party is cited up front, the odds are that they are a Republican. If it's buried several paragraphs down, or omitted, it's likely they're a Democrat.

No, it's not a hard and fast rule. But the examples are legion. And it's almost never "corrected."

As far as you still being part of Wizbang, and I'm not... sorry I was offered a better position. Not sorry I left you behind. Your presence made my decision to depart considerably easier.

By the way, I actually did regret -- a little -- my unpleasant response to your congratulatory e-mail at the time. For all of six seconds.

J.

Jay Tea:

You're inside my head? That explains a great deal -- you've obviously been out of your own mind for a very, very long time...

J.

Lee Ward:

Glad to see your morning meds have finally kicked in. You know the commenting policy here well, Jay. I suggest you stick to it - or yes, if you prove to be a troll again you will be banned, and I won't wait until you use phony IDs to do it this time.

"Your presence made my decision to depart considerably easier."

I know! That's the best part. I got inside your head and ran you out of town.

Mike:

Wow, just wow! I love watching Lee here gripe about personal attacks when that's all he's good at but he just won't admit it. Lee commits a personal attack one day and condemns it another. I guess he just can't handle his own medicine. Sounds about like our own president who can't handle jokes about his ears but insults disabled people. Democrats- the party of the lame and humorless.

pvd:
Mention "room temperature IQs" and look who shows up...
If you don't understand those words ask your mom to explain it to you.
And now I blog here and you don't -- imagine that.

No, Jay - you're here to stay... my play thing, my toy.

Your off-topic personal attack, which violates the commenting TOS that you used to enforce at Wizbang, is just another example of how far off balance you've gotten Jay.

How revelatory. How entertaining. How off topic. I'll think the "H" word but won't dare to speak it.

For the record, it looks like there was about 1.5 on topic posts in this thread, Lee. LiberalNightmare was on topic. I was slightly on topic at the end of my comment.

The rest was a food fight between you and, well, everybody else.

JLawson:

It's not about the subject for Lee - it's about the attention. Everything else is secondary.

Ed:

I tend to think Sanford really did go on an Appalachian retreat as he initally stated.

It's just that an extra marital affair in Argentina doesn't sound nearly as bad as "squealing like a pig" for several mountain men does.

GarandFan:

"Fox News Lies". That's funny Lee. The crap put out by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc never appears to bother you. Selective amnesia?

Lee Ward:

I've got an obsessed troll following me around these days, pvd. He was banned previously, and with the recent lifting of all bans he's resurfaced. Until his meds get balanced again I will put up with his childish as long as I can.

"It's just that an extra marital affair in Argentina doesn't sound nearly as bad as "squealing like a pig" for several mountain men does."

LOL! The gay boys on the right squeal? I suspect not, I suspect they beg for more...

pvd:

Looks like you have more than one, Lee.

Liberal Nightmare
DaveD
Jay Tea

All trolls stalking you, hence the need to go nuclear on the personal side.

I don't envy you.

Jay Tea:

Lee, I'm not interested in rehashing ancient history. I took your mass un-banning (which must have been truly massive -- you're far, far faster and freer with the ban hammer than I ever was) as a "let bygones be bygones" and "everyone gets a clean slate."

If you like, why not start a discussion on "Jay Tea's moral and ethical failings" and outline your grievances, and what you'd like me to do to atone for them. I'll look it over and, if the spirit moves me, I'll answer.

I'd recommend putting most of it "below the fold" (in the extended section) so as to not bore everyone else with this private feud.

In the meantime, I'll comment as the spirit moves me, as the topic dictates.

J.

Lee Ward:

Sorry, but I can't stop laughing... lol.

LiberalNightmare:

-
Liberal Nightmare
DaveD
Jay Tea

All trolls stalking you, hence the need to go nuclear on the personal side.

I don't envy you.
-
Its not that Im stalking Lee - its just that he makes it so easy.
Its like hitting a bucket with a stick - if you do it right, you get such a great sound out of it. ;)

JLawson:

Yeah, but the holes in it afterward make it so much harder for it to carry water, LM...

pvd:

JLawson,

Funny, I haven't noted any lack of ability for Lee to carry water -

ke_future:

/offTopic
i'd just like to point out that on this thread Mr Ward called out and attempted to insult Jay Tea before he'd even posted on the thread. in my book the thrashing that Jay Tea then administered to Lee was both satisfying and well deserved. so the next time that Lee talks about people going off topic, not adhering to the posting rules, or engaging in personal insults, please refer him to this page and then poliitely tell him to go bugger off. oh, and i, too, love how lee considers the use of his own quotes as a personal attack. you just can't pay for entertainment this funny
/backOnTopic

i have seen every major news organization make these types of mistakes. as is quite typical of the left wing, they only focus on when conservatives or republicans make mistakes. and then they attack and bemoan the horrible and evil right-wing haters and liars. and then conviently forget about similar mistakes from the leftward leaning news organizations.

by all appearances this was just a mistake. they happen. ALL OF THE TIME. by the time that i had heard about it and looked, it had already been corrected. i'm not going to say no harm/no foul. but this was seriously not that big a deal.

Jay Tea:

ke, you gotta remember the rules around here:

1) Commenters are not allowed to make "personal attacks" on the authors.

B) What constitutes a "personal attack" is whatever the hell an author feels like calling one. Or refusing to call one.

III) The rigidly-enforced "commenting policy" is not readily accessible to casual readers, with no links to the stated rules -- which are enforced in a way that is both utterly capricious and utterly draconian at the same time.

d) The authors are exempt from the rules imposed on commenters.

Keep all that in mind, ke, and you'll do just fine.

J.

Lee Ward:

"i have seen every major news organization make these types of mistakes"

Go find a few examples of a news organization labeling a democratic pedophile or adulterer as a Republican and you might, for once, have a point, ke_future.

Go on... post it here. If it is so common it must be easy to find.

pvd:

J.

Thanks for point III - I had wondered where the rules were linked (after I got banned the last time for asking pointed questions which apparently is "trolling" here).

Not knowing the exact rules, I've opted for a more suble approach.

Not everybody gets it which is either entertaining or a sign of poor commenting on my part. I'm a glass half-full kind of guy so I go with the former.

pvd:

Lee,

A little tough after the fact since most news organizations self-correct identifications. A more frequent observation is leaving out the party identification.

It's spawned the game "Guess the Party" on sites like Instapundit. If you guess "Republican", you lose.

Next time I see it, I'll post it.

It shouldn't take long. The pigs are at the trough and things are getting ugly - David Obey and Maxine Waters were snuffling and pushing and shoving after a $1,000,000 earmark.

pvd:

Didn't think it would take long on the "Guess the Party" game.

Monica Conyers pleads guilty to bribery charges. The closest we come to party identification is a single mention in paragraph five about her husband.
Linky

pvd:

Another "Guess the Party" with multiple participants.

Link

Lee Ward:

Neither of those examples mis-identifies a Republican as a Democrat.

So far, the attempt to prove ke_future right has proven him wrong - no examples of a news organization identifying a Democrat "bad egg" as a Republican.

Not to worry, Ke_future says it happens all the time, so I'm sure he'll produce a couple of examples. He's not lying...

or... maybe he is. We'll see.

Here's the TOS Section 7. At the bottom of the section is a link back to the entire TOS. After the link is a excerpt of provision 22 relating specifically to commenting.

7. MEMBER CONDUCT You understand that all information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Wizbang, LLC, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Service. Wizbang, LLC does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable.

You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; (b) harm minors in any way; (c) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Wizbang, LLC official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (d) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements); (e) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party; (f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; (g) interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service; (h) intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law; (i) "stalk" or otherwise harass another; (j) collect or store personal data about other users; (k) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals. This may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades and other weapons, and creating "Crush" sites;

http://wizbangblog.com/tos/tos.php

Excerpt of section 22.

22. ADDENDUM - COMMENT AND TRACKBACK POLICY

Comment and trackbacks at Wizbang are open and do not currently require registration. This may change in the future.

Your participation - whether you agree or disagree with us - is welcomed and valued. We do not censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We expect and encourage heated, robust debate, but comments should be civil and free of threats and otherwise in accordance with section 7 (MEMBER CONDUCT) of the Terms of Service at all times.

The ability to leave comments and submit trackbacks is a privilege granted by the site owner. Those privileges may be suspended or revoked at any time and for any reason at the sole discretion of the owner and/or their agents.

In addition to the items in section 7 (MEMBER CONDUCT), the following types of comments are subject to deletion include:

* Comments containing too many external hyperlinks
* Comments that are completely off topic
* Comments that fail to observe special rules for commenting to that particular post. Failure to observe those published rules (often for contests) will most likely result in your comment being deleted.
* "Me too" comments to older items that add nothing to the conversation.
* Comments that are actually advertisements in disguise. If you've got a product to sell you can buy and advertisement at Wizbang for your product. The links to buy advertising are in the left sidebar.

Poor behavior in comment threads is the quickest and easiest way to get your comments deleted, and may eventually lead to a permanent ban from the site, or all Wizbang network sites.
--------------

It's pretty simple. You're a guest here - act like one.

ke_future:

as has been pointed out, they are usually correctly pretty quickly, so there is usually no record to find. if i see one i'll let you know.

i'm not particularly worried what you think of me, lee. but having you insinuate that i am a liar is pretty funny tho. can i invoke section a of the TOS?

a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable

think you could get the TOS a more prominent link?

pvd:
So far, the attempt to prove ke_future right has proven him wrong - no examples of a news organization identifying a Democrat "bad egg" as a Republican

Actually, nothing has been proven yet unless you have established an arbitrary timeline of a couple of minutes to secure evidence. I also indicated that the lack of identification was a separate issue but related. That this problem seems to be a one-way issue is illustrative of the issue of media bias.

The lack of identification a lie of omission rather than commission. There is very little difference in principle. Of course, when we're discussing a principled MSM, it's hard not to laugh. Too much like an oxymoron. Oh, wait, it is an oxymoron.

Thanks for posting the TOS.

Lee Ward:
"So far, the attempt to prove ke_future right has proven him wrong..."

Time is relative, and so far... the statement above still applies. Based on ke-future's unwillingness to back up his claim with any verifiable facts or links to support his claim, my guess is that "so far" will extend far into the future.

In other words -- we aren't going to see any facts from any body to support ke_future's claim.

Does that make it a lie? Well, if it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck... I'd say look for webbed feet.

pvd:

LInk

MSNBC website tags Republican ex-DC Madam client as a Democrat

Should I keep digging?

pvd:

Well that was dumb of me....

Sorry.

Lee Ward:

lol - yeah - your example is another example of media identifying a Republican erroneously as a Democrat.

Don't worry - ke_future is going to pop up with several links to support his ... uhm... 'statement' that this happens all the time and that it's a two-way street.

Bonus points, ke - if you come up with one example where Fox News indentified a Democratic bad guy as a Republican.

Jay Tea:

OK, let's spell it out:

There are two different games being played here.

1) Some media organizations -- specifically Fox News, but probably others -- occasionally identify Republican malfeasants as Democrats. This is almost instantly caught (sometimes by Fox, more often by the obsessive control freaks at places like Media Masters) and corrected.

2) When a Democrat commits some offense, the game changes. Instead, it's "Name That Party!" In those cases, the party identification is often buried or omitted entirely.

Neither game has a good converse. It's rare for misbehaving Democrats to be identified as Republicans, and it's even more rare for Republicans' party affiliation to be buried or omitted.

And in both cases, it's a stupid little game that oughta be knocked off.

J.

Jay Tea:

Nice cut and paste from the Terms Of Service, Lee. Thanks for proving my point.

1) The TOS is not linked from the front page of Wizbang Blue.

2) It is directly linked from the main page of Wizbang Blog.

3) There isn't even a link to the main page of Wizbang Blog.

The rules aren't "several clicks" away from the main page. They're utterly inaccessible unless the reader manually types in the URL.

You're expecting casual readers of wizbangblue.com to follow rules that they can't possibly access unless they somehow know that Blue is a wholly-owned subsidiary of wizbangblog.com, and that the very same rules -- which never once mention "Blue" -- apply here.

Some of us pretty much know that. Some of us have even deciphered the unwritten rules (well, formerly unwritten, until I wrote them out). But the casual reader... oh, well.

J.

SCSIwuzzy:

I don't think it is so rare for media folks to flub party identification, esp when the politician isn't a household name. Jay Leno thought Eliot Spitzer was a republican.

Heck, the inestimable Lee Ward himself recently wrongly identified most of California's legislature as Republicans.

http://wizbangblue.com/2009/06/18/time-to-fight-back-against-racists-in-america.php#comment-918901

But neither Leno nor Ward are regarded as serious media figures.

Lee Ward:

It's rare that anyone is banned without being warned several times first, Jay. Usually after being warned a troll will get angry and say something stupid like "go ahead Lee you %&$@*$%, ban me - see if I care!" or something equally inviting.

It pretty simple really. You're a guest here - act like one.

If you were a guest in someone's house and you were offended by something they said would you drop your pants and crap on their coffee table? No, you'd leave.

I offer the same advice here. If what I say so offends you - leave! Or just don't comment on my posts. Or complain to the publisher.

Attack me, call me names, get abusive, call me out - and you may get your ass banned (again). Unlike Maggie on Wizbang - I won't censor your comments, I'll wait until you violate the TOS, warn you several times, then you'll be banned if you keep it up. It's so simple even you should be able to figure this out.

You don't like what I have to say - leave. Nobody is asking you to read it - and since you are here as guest, guess what -- attacking the host is inappropriate.

SCSIwuzzy:

It pretty simple really. You're a guest here - act like one

In real life, do you pick fights with your guests, and engage in homophobic slurs before they said a word?

I'm reminded of the recent "assault" on Perez Hilton.

pvd:

Actually, Lee, I engaged in none of the name-calling, personal attacks or abusive behavior.

I did challange an arguement that you made.

I got banned for "trolling". By you.

If I am a guest with certain obligations, do you not then have a recipercol responsibility to act as a gracious host?

Lee Ward:

I'm under no obligation to entertain you, pvd. In fact, you can pretty much count on the fact since you're here on a liberal blog as a conservative that I will offend you.

Now - if you had a neighbor whose opinions offend you on a pretty regular basis, does that give you the right to stand in his front yard and offend him back?

You're in my front yard - act like a guest and you're welcome to stay. If you find me offensive, leave. If you want to stand in my front yard and throw rocks at me, be prepared to be fenced out.

It's pretty simple.

pvd:

Dude,

1. You don't own the yard. You're hired help.

2. Looks like we aren't guests. We're a potential market to advertise to.

3. I don't need entertaining.

4. I'm hard as hell to offend - and people better at it than you have tried - hell, in my profession, if everybody loves me, I'm not getting the job done.

5. I've split many a beer with leftwing neighbors, cordially and civilly. The difference is that we had great discussions rather than casting aspersions. I've never used a homophobic or racist slur against my nieghbors or guests.


NOW, back on topic - lies.

Is there a difference between lies of commission and omission?

Jay Tea:

Well, I can make a few pledges, Lee.

I will not insult you with juvenile sexual slurs.

I will not call you stupid, hypocritical, or a liar.

I will not taunt you gleefully when I think I have scored some grand point.

I will not make up lies about you.

I think that ought to be in line with the rules of the road...

J.

SCSIwuzzy:

Or, in this analogy, you call a former neighbor names without provocation, and then cry foul when he points out that you are what you claim to hate the most: a hypocrite.

pvd:

SCSIwuzzy:

Now you've done it. You used the "H" word. Lee's gonna kick us out of his yard for sure.

Again.

SCSIwuzzy:

PVD,
I strongly suspect that the lift of bans, not to be confused with wedding banns, did not come from Mr W, but rather from Mr. A.
This place (Wizbang) is an enterprise, as it has been pointed out. If everyone is banned, nobody will visit. No visits, no ad revenue. No revenue, no point in letting Lee and the left brigade (which is what, Lee and Paul only now?) have their own play pen. It's not like they attract readers and comments from anywhere but Wizbang... if you want crazy leftist theories, you've got Kos. If you want concentrated crazy, you've got DU. Cocktail party crazy (the kind you can blame on the hooch the next day)? Go to Huffington.

People come to Blue because the A team are slow that day. Given that Thayer went to take a paying gig at Commentary, I can only imagine that traffic has gone up here. He was the most prolific and commented upon poster at WB, so I interpret Ward's constant attacks on him as jealousy. Or unrequited love. Your pick.

Earlier, Lee said that Jay was his toy. He has that reversed: Blue is OUR (the viewing public) toy. Paul and Lee are the petting zoo of Wizbang. And despite delusions of grandeur, like the llama of the children's zoo, the worst thing about the exhibits is their tendency to spit malodorous gobs of phlegm at passersby.

As for the threat of Lee and banning... I've seen scarier things in my stool.

Jay Tea:

In the words of one of my favorite commenters from Wizbang, McGehee:

"Remember, Jay -- never play with people's heads.

Unless they bounce really good."

SCSI, you do me great honor. I'm positively blushing.

J.

pvd:
Paul and Lee are the petting zoo of Wizbang.

Ick.

The part about the un-ban I agree with and obliquely said it in points 1& 2 of post 45 above.

I really need to work on my sarcasm skills - too many folks are taking me at my word.

Doubting Thomas:

SCSI -

I think Steve's bailed - he hasn't posted much of anything here at the Blue in a long time.

Gotta admit since the banning was lifted I'm commenting more over here...

Lee Ward:

Feel free to comment on topic in a respectful manner.

In the future, troll conventions such as the one that took place on this comment thread will not be tolerated. This isn't allowed at Wizbang, and it isn't allowed here.

Unlike over at Wizbang, your comments will not be disemvoweled if someone arbitrarily decides your political viewpoint is 'offensive.' If you stay on topic, you're welcome to get 'in my face' the same way I get 'in your face' in my posts and in my comments.

But you have to at least make an effort to stay on topic or not wander far off for too long.

Off-topic ad hominem attacks on the writers of this blog or liberals in general will get you booted in a new york minute -- in accordance with the site Terms of Service.

http://wizbangblog.com/tos/tos.php

Commenting on this thread has been closed.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.