Text 13987, 65 rader
Skriven 2005-07-09 09:19:14 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av BOB SAKOWSKI
Ärende: Re: Judges
==================
->  EC> Don't you think it is a bit dishonest for you to make the above
->  EC> claim without even MENTIONING Rutledge's mental illness?

-> I thought I would emulate Ed Klein 

I gave you an easy opening, Bob.  All that you had to do was admit that
you did a blind-faith cut-and-paste job without considering the truth of
what you were cutting.  Instead, you stick with your pretense that the
falsehoods were yours, and you try to rationalizxe it with some form of
a "two wrongs make a right" argument.  Gee that's sad.  The 2000
election is over, Bob.  Try to get past it, and become the person you
were in 1999.

-> I thought I would emulate Ed Klein and see how long it took the
-> hypocrites to come out of the woodwork.

There are only two things I know for sure about that person: (1) he
wrote a book about the Clintons, and (2) the Clinton smear machine has
been moving heaven and earth to attack him in any way possible, even
before the book came out.  Your comment seems to suggest that you think
there are falsehoods in Klein's book.  If so, it looks like there is
exactly one "hypocrite" who has "come out of the woodwork," and that
would be YOU.  Do you SEE that, Bob, or does it require further
explanation?

-> surprised to see your unwillingness to call into question another 
-> book of lies regarding Senator Clinton.

If I were to read it and detect gross falsehoods in it, I'd probably
react the same way that I did when I read your post and detected gross
falsehoods.  But I doubt that I would post a response to him in fidonet,
since I doubt that he reads this echo.

In fact, if the book is in fact a "book of lies" that attacks her or
puts her in a negative light (I probably shouldn't assume that you have
actually READ the book; you are just repeating what you have heard
elsewhere, right?), coming out more than THREE YEARS before the 2008
election, I'd have more serious doubts about the book and the author
than you would.  One thing I've noticed about the Clinton political
advisers over the years is that they have a keen sense of the concept of
"innoculation" from persuasion theory.  If they are really worried about
Hillary being hurt in early 2008 by skeletons from her past, it helps
them greatly to be able to say "those stories are OLD news" and "that
was discredited back in 2005" and "they are just repeating Klein."


-> Do you REALLY think it is honest for you to take umbrage at my emulation of
-> the typical right wing author, when you have nothing ill to say of the likes
-> of Klein, Coulter, Goldberg, et al?

Yes.  Yes, I do.  Why would I say ill of Klein, when I neither know nor
care what he wrote?  I know three people named "Coulter," and I have
nothing ill to say of them.  But given the hate-sites you seem to
frequent on the web, I am guessing that you mean Ann Coulter.  I've read
a few of her columns and seen her several times on the "yell at each
other" TV shows, but I've never seen her flatout lie in any way that I
detected offhand.  I have made a few fidonet comments about how her
style of shrill namecalling and hyperbole undercuts (for me at least;
maybe not for her fanbase) anything of value that may be in the
substance of what she says.  Goldberg?  The host of the History Channel
show on cars?  Never seen it, although I have seen commercials FOR it.
But what does ANY of this have to do with YOUR misrepresentation of
history?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)