NewsMax Perpetuates LIES to FOSSTEr Fear and Push Neo-Con Agenda

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This recent example should help explain the twisted perception and gullibility of certain posters here:

NewsMax Perpetuates LIES to Foster Fear and Push Neo-Con Agenda

(source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/19/155943.shtml )

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:57 p.m. EDT
Iran: Jews, Christians Must Wear Badges

In a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David insignia, Iran’s parliament has reportedly passed a law requiring Jews, Christians and other religious minorities to wear color-coded badges to identify them as non-Muslims.

The law would also set a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear "standard Islamic garments.”

The law, which must be approved by Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei before taking effect, requires Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes. Christians would be forced to wear red badges and Zoroastrians would wear blue cloth, according to Canada’s National Post.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

"Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Bernie Farber, chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, agrees.
"There are some frightening parallels here,” he told the National Post.

"We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again. It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

The new law was drafted two years ago, but lingered in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the urging of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the Nazis' "Final Solution."

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the new law would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims.

Iran's small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities "have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them," he told the Post.

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard told reporters about the law: "Anything of that kind would be totally repugnant to civilized countries, if it's the case, and something that would just further indicate to me the nature of this regime. It would be appalling.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has written to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the law.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years. He was dismissed as a demagogue. They said he'd never come to power.

"And we were all wrong."

But from the "horses' mouth".........

(source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19196947-1702,00.html )

Jewish MP denies Iran badge plan
From correspondents in Tehran
May 20, 2006
IRAN'S only Jewish MP strongly denied reports in a Canadian newspaper overnight that Iran may force non-Muslims to wear coloured badges in public so they can be identified.
"This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false," Maurice Motammed said in Tehran. "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain" by doing so.

The National Post newspaper quoted human rights groups as saying that Iran's parliament passed a law this week setting a public dress code and requiring non-Muslims to wear special insignia.

Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear a yellow, red or blue strip of cloth, respectively, on the front of their clothes, it said.

Mr Motammed said he had been present in parliament when a bill to promote "an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women" was voted. "In the law, there is no mention of religious minorities," he added.

MPs representing Iran's Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian minorities sit on all parliamentary committees, particularly the cultural one, he said.

"This is an insult to the Iranian people and to religious minorities in Iran," he said.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said overnight, during an official visit to Ottawa, that "anything of that kind would be totally repugnant to civilised countries, if it's the case, and something that would just further indicate to me the nature of this regime. It would be appalling."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he had only seen reports about the law but that he would not be surprised by them.

"Unfortunately, we have seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," he said.

"It think it boggles the mind that any regime on the face of the earth would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany," he added.

"The fact that such a measure could even be contemplated, I think, is absolutely abhorrent."

Harper's parliamentary secretary, Jason Kenney, told the House of Commons that Canadian officials were trying to verify the claims.

And this is why Limbaugh, Newsmax et al must never be trusted:

(source: http://www.democrats.com/node/9012 )

Submitted by Bob Fertik on May 23, 2006 - 12:16pm.Neo-Conservatives | U.S. Attack

Joseph Cannon rightly calls our attention to Elena Benador, the woman who played a crucial role in brainwashing millions of Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq - and is trying to do the same in Iran. Here's what the Jim Lobe wrote about her in 2003:

When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been…

But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible. Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for [Richard] Perle, [James] Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months.

Now Benador's clients are working just as hard to get the U.S. to invade Iran. One of her clients is Amir Taheri, who is a "commentator for CNN." (CNN does not publish a list of commentators, which is extremely suspicious. What are they hiding?) Taheri became infamous this week for writing a bogus story claiming Iran just passed a law requiring Jews to wear yellow stripes.

Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar.

There was absolutely no basis for this claim - Taheri pulled it straight out of his ass - and it was denied immediately by Maurice Motamed, the representative of the Iranian Jewish community in Iran's parliament. But because it served the neocon propaganda purpose of demonizing Iran, Taheri's Big Lie instantly circulated throughout the global neocon conspiracy, including Rush Limbaugh, the Jerusalem Post and NewsMax.

I guess every news outlet is allowed it's "Rather Moment", eh?

 

[Calabrio]

It doesn't matter if you just cut and paste that from some idiotic liberal blog or wasted the time to compose it yourself. You've failed to make your point.

Ready, here we go:

Newsmax says:

Iran’s parliament has reportedly passed a law requiring Jews, Christians and other religious minorities to wear color-coded badges to identify them as non-Muslims.

Let me simplify that for you: It has been reported that Iran's parliament has passed a law...

Are you keeping up? So, you respond to that with a statement from the Iranians. It says:

IRAN'S only Jewish MP strongly denied reports in a Canadian newspaper overnight that Iran may force non-Muslims to wear coloured badges in public so they can be identified.

So, the Newsmax story being reported originated in a Canadian newspaper.

And to conclude, Newsmax even published a CORRECTION:
Canadian Paper: Iran 'Badge' Story Erroneous


So, without responding to the other propoganda nonsense you posted, your primary argument has just been proven false. Try again, there are plenty of message boards with boot licking sycophantic liberals that eat that crap up.

 

[TheDude]

What!? The liberal media had to have something to do with this!

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It doesn't matter if you just cut and paste that from some idiotic liberal blog or wasted the time to compose it yourself. You've failed to make your point.

Ready, here we go:

Newsmax says:


Let me simplify that for you: It has been reported that Iran's parliament has passed a law...

Are you keeping up? So, you respond to that with a statement from the Iranians. It says:


So, the Newsmax story being reported originated in a Canadian newspaper.

Look up the definition of "perpetuate". Here, I'll help:

per·pet·u·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-pch-t)
tr.v. per·pet·u·at·ed, per·pet·u·at·ing, per·pet·u·ates
>>To cause to continue indefinitely; make perpetual.
>>To prolong the existence of; cause to be remembered: The new library will perpetuate its founder's great love of learning.

And to conclude, Newsmax even published a CORRECTION:
Canadian Paper: Iran 'Badge' Story Erroneous

SO? Curious how it took NewsMax 5 days to publish this correction. But regardless, HOW is this any different that what Rather/CBS did w/ BuSh's ANG story? They both failed to double-check their souces before publishing the story. OH, I know! CBS/Rather did issue an apology, NewsMax has not.

So, without responding to the other propoganda nonsense you posted, your primary argument has just been proven false.

You didn't even grasp my point, that being that NewsMax and other neo-con, liberal-hating news outlets ravinously eat up and regurgitate ANYTHING that supports their twisted view of the world regardless of the presence of facts to support it all in an attempt to brainwash the already mentally feeble RWWs of this country. At the same time, the "high standards" of reporting that those RWWs expect of the MSM suddenly do not apply to their own favorite propaganda feeding troughs. You can't have it both ways.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

I feel like I'm living in Bizarro World, JohnnyBz, Emperor.

Johnny is perpetuating this story.

Johnny doesn't remember that I was the one who corrected the story on this forum AS SOON AS I SAW THAT IT WASN'T TRUE.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=22512&highlight=iran+badge

Johnny never commented on the PHONY Karl Rove story put out by truthout.org and PERPETUATED by Phil on this forum.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=10176&page=5&highlight=rove+indicted

Johnny is eleven days behind in putting this "thread" together. Johnny must be slow.

Johnny is still perpetuating lies about Bush and conservatives on this forum to this day.

Johnny shows his personal hatred for yours truly by lamely and clumsily singling me out in his title.

Johnny is illogically trying to project MSM standards and baloney onto NewsMax by generalizing from one isolated incident as a counterbalance to DECADES of misreporting and twisting by the Drive-by Media.

Nice try, Johnny, but you come across too late and too amateurish and too hypocritical to really make a good point.

A double standard, according to the World Book Dictionary, is a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another. Double standards are seen as unjust because they violate a principle of justice known as impartiality. Impartiality is the principle that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people to different standards.

While double standards are generally condemned in the abstract, they are also very common. Efforts to defend purported double standards usually take the form of denying that a double standard is being applied or attempting to give a good reason for the disparate treatment.

 

[Calabrio]

Look up the definition of "perpetuate".

And after you do that, try to understand what it means. They would only be "perpetuating a lie" if they ran the story after knowing it was untrue. See, they didn't perpetuate a lie, they reported that a Canadian paper was reporting something. It's not complicated, try to see past your hate and you'll quickly realize that you've picked a bad example.

To cause to continue indefinitely; make perpetual.

Nope, this doesn't apply.

To prolong the existence of; cause to be remembered

Nope, this doesn't apply either. Perhaps you didn't read the end of my post, but they corrected the error. Thus, there is no perpetuation.

SO? Curious how it took NewsMax 5 days to publish this correction. But regardless, HOW is this any different that what Rather/CBS did w/ BuSh's ANG story? They both failed to double-check their souces before publishing the story. OH, I know! CBS/Rather did issue an apology, NewsMax has not.

There is absolutely nothing in common with this story and the Dan Rather story. First, Newsmax would have had to have made up the story themself. Then, they would have had to take forged information and claim it was real. Then they would have had to reported this data immediately before a Presidential election, with the intention of affecting the outcome. And after they are exposed, they would have to maintain the story was true.

There is nothing in common here.

You didn't even grasp my point, that being that NewsMax and other neo-con, liberal-hating news outlets ravinously eat up and regurgitate ANYTHING that supports their twisted view of the world regardless of the presence of facts to support it

No, you're wrong. And are you trying to say that it would be unreasonable to think that Iran, a country that has RECENTLY spoken about pushing Israel into the sea, has a radical leader, is under international scrutiny, might propose a law like this?

all in an attempt to brainwash the already mentally feeble RWWs of this country

Oh, I see. You don't think conservatives are as smart as you. And, despite losing EVERY SINGLE argument, you continue to perptuate this false belief. Some might call that delusional, but then again, you'd have to be a bit delusional to believe some of the crap I've seen you write in the past.

At the same time, the "high standards" of reporting that those RWWs expect of the MSM suddenly do not apply to their own favorite propaganda feeding troughs. You can't have it both ways.

No, the same standards apply. And Newsmax, which no one will argue is the best or most reliable newsource on the right, correctly handled the situation. A plausible story hit the wire, they reported on the story, and when it turned out to have been incorrect, they wrote about it at length. And note, that wasn't just a hidden one sentence retraction, that was a full lenght article explaining the entire event.

*owned*

Remember what I was saying about being delusional? Still applies.

 

[fossten]

Still waiting for Phil to retract the Rove story or Johnny to criticize him for not doing so. Unless they have a double standard.

(cue Jeopardy music)

Yawn. This sure is taking a loooong time.

 

[stang99x]

Wow, a conservative source gets caught once for reporting something they found then retracting when they find its false, but liberals do it everyday and its A OK!:shifty:

 

[fossten]

Still waiting. |_()53R5.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I feel like I'm living in Bizarro World, JohnnyBz, Emperor.

Johnny is perpetuating this story.

Johnny doesn't remember that I was the one who corrected the story on this forum AS SOON AS I SAW THAT IT WASN'T TRUE.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...ght=iran+badge

Johnny never commented on the PHONY Karl Rove story put out by truthout.org and PERPETUATED by Phil on this forum.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...ove+indic ted

Johnny is eleven days behind in putting this "thread" together. Johnny must be slow.

Johnny is still perpetuating lies about Bush and conservatives on this forum to this day.

Johnny shows his personal hatred for yours truly by lamely and clumsily singling me out in his title.

Johnny is illogically trying to project MSM standards and baloney onto NewsMax by generalizing from one isolated incident as a counterbalance to DECADES of misreporting and twisting by the Drive-by Media.

Nice try, Johnny, but you come across too late and too amateurish and too hypocritical to really make a good point.

Gosh, another episode of you resorting to personal attacks when you have nothing else to debate with. Big surprise!

Still waiting for Phil to retract the Rove story or Johnny to criticize him for not doing so. Unless they have a double standard.

(cue Jeopardy music)

Yawn. This sure is taking a loooong time.


Still waiting. |_()53R5.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you realized that unlike yourself, my life does NOT revolve around what transpires here in the LvC politics forum. To be honest with you, I had never read those threads until you posted the above links.

While I commend you for posting NewsMax's retraction so expiditiously, it does not change the fact that they were quick to jump all over it within a day of the Canadian article, but they dragged their feet for 5 days after the story was debunked before they published their retraction. Smells like a "double standard" to me.

WRT your expectation of me being critical of Phil for some post he made, it appears you had that issue in hand and there is no purpose for me to "pile on". He's a big boy, he's capable of defending himself. Don't try to project your own temptations upon me.

There is absolutely nothing in common with this story and the Dan Rather story. First, Newsmax would have had to have made up the story themself. Then, they would have had to take forged information and claim it was real. Then they would have had to reported this data immediately before a Presidential election, with the intention of affecting the outcome. And after they are exposed, they would have to maintain the story was true.

There is nothing in common here.

You are again confused. The Dan Rather story was based on documents produced by a source "close to the story" who claimed they were legit, CBS/Rather did not "make it up". Their claim that the documents were real stopped as soon as it became apparent that they were forged, they in no way maintained that the story was true after it was debunked. Rather's televised apology occured on 9/20/04, a full 6 weeks prior to the election. Therefore any claim of yours that it had an effect on the outcome that was detremental to BuSh is unfounded. The fact that the source of the forged documents "planted" them into the hands of CBS/Rather smells of a setup by the right to discredit CBS/Rather and the MSM in general. If anything, this story helped BuSh more than it hurt him.

The only difference remaining between the NewsMax story and the CBS/Rather story is, as I have stated before, CBS/Rather expressed regret for the mistake, NewsMax has not. Has Limbaugh?

 

[fossten]

While I commend you for posting NewsMax's retraction so expiditiously, it does not change the fact that they were quick to jump all over it within a day of the Canadian article, but they dragged their feet for 5 days after the story was debunked before they published their retraction. Smells like a "double standard" to me.

WRT your expectation of me being critical of Phil for some post he made, it appears you had that issue in hand and there is no purpose for me to "pile on". [What a weasely copout! Especially after you admit that you never saw the article.] He's a big boy, he's capable of defending himself. [Why would he need defending? He was wrong! You don't see anything wrong with his article? You decry NewsMax but support truthout.org? You sound like a partisan hack.] Don't try to project your own temptations upon me.

According to YOUR OWN LOGIC, since I dealt with the Iran story "so expeditiously," as you put it, what are you doing now but PILING ON, and in an untimely fashion at that? What's that, another DOUBLE STANDARD?

The only difference remaining between the NewsMax story and the CBS/Rather story is, as I have stated before, CBS/Rather expressed regret for the mistake, NewsMax has not.

I think Calabrio did a rather masterful job of pointing out the differences in the FALSIFIED AND STILL STUBBORNLY CLUNG TO Rather story vs. the NewsMax story. You are in denial. I suggest you go back and re-read his response to you. You are suffering from RaVeneyes' disease: Ignoring facts thrust right in front of your face.

Has Limbaugh?

Has Limbaugh WHAT?

The bottom line here, Johnny, is that you posted almost two weeks too late complaining about something I already dealt with. You act like this is some big discrepancy while you ignore Phil's contradiction. When confronted with it, you sidestep it with more denial and rhetoric instead of taking responsibility for your own actions; which, by the way, is what I did WRT the Iran article.

You, sir, are NOT intellectually honest. You are one of the most one-sided, tunnel-visioned, blinders-wearing left wingers on this site. You're not going to prove any point on this one. Either play fair or you're a loser.

 

[Calabrio]

You are again confused. The Dan Rather story was based on documents produced by a source "close to the story" who claimed they were legit, CBS/Rather did not "make it up".

And, you're not confused, you're just flat out wrong. The story was produced by a source who was a recognized Bush-hater. A man with a suspect history and far from a reliable source. Further more, the "evidence" he proved wasn't even remotely convincing and couldn't be authenticated.

Their claim that the documents were real stopped as soon as it became apparent that they were forged, they in no way maintained that the story was true after it was debunked.

No. CBS started to back away from the story after external pressure forced their hand into acknowledging the forgeries. They did not do so voluntarily. Nor has Dan Rather actually ever acknowledged that the papers were forgeries. At most he'll recognize that they are "suspect." And to this day he still maintains the story was true.

Rather's televised apology occured on 9/20/04, a full 6 weeks prior to the election. Therefore any claim of yours that it had an effect on the outcome that was detremental to BuSh is unfounded.

I didn't say that it had an outcome. I said it was intened to have an outcome. Fortunately, news outlets like Newsmax and conservative bloggers picked up on the lie and made it public. Ten years ago, without the existence of public conservative voices, this story would have cost Bush the election.

And Rather's apology wasn't sincere and he never admitted the documents were false, he never admitted the story wasn't true.

The fact that the source of the forged documents "planted" them into the hands of CBS/Rather smells of a setup by the right to discredit CBS/Rather and the MSM in general.

Remember what I said about being delusional? Still applies. Rather and his producer, Mapes, were directed to the story by the Kerry aids, not the vast consipratorial Bush cronies.

If anything, this story helped BuSh more than it hurt him.

Perhaps. Sometimes those things backfire on you guys.

The only difference remaining between the NewsMax story and the CBS/Rather story is, as I have stated before, CBS/Rather expressed regret for the mistake, NewsMax has not.

You seriously live in an alternate reality. Newsmax reported on a story, and they corrected it at length. But since you're so caught up in the timeline here, how long did it take before Dan Rather issued his phoney "apology" statement?

The TV report was September 8.
Rather made his statement on September 20.

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

That hardly reads like a retraction.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Blah, blah, blah..........

All of your moaning and groaning and kicking and screaming does not change my original assertion, that is NewsMax is just another bonified member of the “Drive-By Media” that is complained about constantly here. This makes anyone who relies on that news source an equivalent “drive-by poster”, and if they complain about those same tactics, makes them a hypocrite. I used the Iran/Nazi story as an example to prove my point. You pointed out that they retracted that story, yet that retraction came 5 days after the story was debunked. BFD. It does not change the fact that they dragged their feet for those 5 days and they could have published a retraction earlier; they were not hesitant to jump all over the false story when it broke on the wire, therefore there is no excuse for their delay for the rebuttal, except that their hand was forced by the originator of the false story’s retraction. Thus, until they published their retraction, they were perpetuating a lie.

I attempted to draw a parallel to the CBS/Rather ANG story that got national attention and drew heavy fire from the right. Your attempts at rebuttals are misguided and founded on falsehoods, therefore they have no credibility:

The source of the Bush ANG story was pushing a political agenda. The source of the Iran/Nazi story was pushing a political agenda. The source of the Bush ANG story came from outside CBS/Rather/Mapes. The source of the Iran/Nazi story came from outside NewsMax. Neither of these two news outlets are guilty of “making the story up” or creating the lie, only of perpetuating it until the retractions were made. Both are guilty of quenching their thirst for “dirt” that furthers their political party’s agenda by propagating a false story without first double-checking their facts first. Both issued retractions once their backs were against the wall. CBS/Rather expressed regret for running the story in the first place, NewsMax has not.

Your attempts to discredit me by the barrage of personal attacks, nit-picking of my timing of starting this thread (even despite your acknowledgement that is was an honest oversight on my part) only shows how juvenile you two can be when you’ve lost the debate. Yet again, this is not the first time this has happened to myself and others posting here at LvC, and I certainly don’t expect it to be the last. But don’t expect your bullying tactics to continue working here because you will get smacked down. It may not come expeditiously because I don’t “live” on the LvC politics forum, but it will come.

 

[fossten]

All of your moaning and groaning and kicking and screaming [lie] does not change my original assertion, that is NewsMax is just another bonified member of the “Drive-By Media” that is complained about constantly here. [But your assertion hasn't been proven] This makes anyone who relies on that news source an equivalent “drive-by poster”, and if they complain about those same tactics, makes them a hypocrite. [wrong] I used the Iran/Nazi story as an example to prove my point. You pointed out that they retracted that story, yet that retraction came 5 days after the story was debunked. BFD. It does not change the fact that they dragged their feet for those 5 days and they could have published a retraction earlier; they were not hesitant to jump all over the false story when it broke on the wire, therefore there is no excuse for their delay for the rebuttal, except that their hand was forced by the originator of the false story’s retraction. Thus, until they published their retraction, they were perpetuating a lie. [or they may have just taken 5 days to discover that it wasn't true, right?]

I attempted to draw a parallel to the CBS/Rather ANG story that got national attention and drew heavy fire from the right. Your attempts at rebuttals are misguided and founded on falsehoods, therefore they have no credibility: [lie]

The source of the Bush ANG story was pushing a political agenda. The source of the Iran/Nazi story was pushing a political agenda. The source of the Bush ANG story came from outside CBS/Rather/Mapes. The source of the Iran/Nazi story came from outside NewsMax. Neither of these two news outlets are guilty of “making the story up” or creating the lie, only of perpetuating it until the retractions were made. [you just contradicted yourself from the previous paragraph] Both are guilty of quenching their thirst for “dirt” that furthers their political party’s agenda [so you admit that CBS is a DNC outlet!!!] by propagating a false story without first double-checking their facts first. Both issued retractions once their backs were against the wall. [lie] CBS/Rather expressed regret for running the story in the first place, NewsMax has not. [lie - Rather still stands by the story - that's disingenuous]

Your attempts to discredit me by the barrage of personal attacks, [where? - lie] nit-picking of my timing of starting this thread (even despite your acknowledgement that is was an honest oversight on my part) [lie] only shows how juvenile [personal attack] you two can be when you’ve lost the debate. [lie] Yet again, this is not the first time this has happened to myself and others posting here at LvC, and I certainly don’t expect it to be the last. But don’t expect your bullying tactics [lie] to continue working here because you will get smacked down. It may not come expeditiously because I don’t “live” on the LvC politics forum, [lie] but it will come. [BFD]

Look who sounds angry. I can picture you pounding on your frothy keyboard.

What is this, the "It ain't so just because I say so" defense? There's barely one single element of truth in that big angry jumble of wasted words you call a post. This is hardly worth critiquing, because everything you just said can be disproven by anybody who goes back and reads this thread again.

Sheesh. What a pack of lies and denials. That's pretty pathetic, even for you.

Come on, big boy, smack me down!