New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

How come there are no liberal email lies ?

Spamature

Spamature

President
How many times have you seen a conservative repost some email they received full of outrageous claims that are usually debunked before the thread falls off the radar. Yet I never see these kinds of emails posted by liberals.

I think the reason for this is very straight forward and says a something about the two groups. One thing that really sticks out is the lack of respect the people who create these emails for the people who read them. If they really respected them they wouldn't tell them outlandish lies with the faith that the recipient is naive enough to believe them.

The other thing that stands out is the lack of respect the recipients have for themselves. If I had received a bunch of lies from someone and then made a fool of myself by repeating them. I wouldn't trust anything else they ever told me again. But time and time again we see conservatives going back to these same liars for information.

Take the Kagan lie posted today. I Googled the exact phrase "$20 million from Shariah" Law proponents" And received 8600 results. Now you could say that this is because its a well researched story passed among conservative instead of a slew of useful fools and knowing conspirators regurgitating this slop. Except for just one little problem. The word Sharia is misspelled in the original email. Which means what was returned by Google was nothing more than copy and paste without so much as a simple spell check by these conservative sites .

When I see stuff like this I really worry about the misuses of information technology and our society. What really bothers me is it seem as the right doesn't care one wit about its misuse as long as they can gain a short term win by manipulating people who apparently want to be manipulated.
 
WHAT!??

Are you kidding?

I get one from the White House or VP at least once a week!

I got one from Debbie W Schultz telling of the Republican War on Women for crying out loud.

Your side's misinformation is widespread, and yes, in phony emails as well.

Who do you think you're fooling with that nonsense?
 
Dino said:
WHAT!??

Are you kidding?

I get one from the White House or VP at least once a week!

I got one from Debbie W Schultz telling of the Republican War on Women for crying out loud.

Your side's misinformation is widespread, and yes, in phony emails as well.

Who do you think you're fooling with that nonsense?
Click to expand...

And you consider this email to be a lie ?

Because here is a debunking of the Kagan email right here.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/17/right-wing-pac-lies-about-kagan/

And here it is debunked again by Media Matters when Glenn Beck started this nonsense almost TWO YEARS AGO.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006280031

Now let's see you do the same with an email from the WH or DWS ?
 
Will do, the very next time I get one. They'll tell me another lie and a reason to send them money, and I'll gladly post it.
BTW, can my explanation its a lie come from a right-wing extremist blog?

Your standard for a burden of proof is quite humorous.
 
Liberals do not have to make up any lies about the Cons...their crap is just hanging out there for all to see.

Also the Cons make up all this stuff to send to each other to keep them frothing at the mouth. They do not even care if it makes their minions look like the fools they are.
 
Dino said:
Will do, the very next time I get one. They'll tell me another lie and a reason to send them money, and I'll gladly post it.
BTW, can my explanation its a lie come from a right-wing extremist blog?

Your standard for a burden of proof is quite humorous.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming what is in the Kagan email is true ?

Otherwise why attack the source that disputes it ?
 
I'm not "attacking" your sources, only explaining them.

You have a personall blog site and medimatters. Please, if you're trying to refute something with FACTS you oughta do better then that.

I have no idea whether Kagan did these things or not, but I surely won't believe such a hyper-partisan set of sources to refute the way you present them.
 
Dino said:
I'm not "attacking" your sources, only explaining them.

You have a personall blog site and medimatters. Please, if you're trying to refute something with FACTS you oughta do better then that.

I have no idea whether Kagan did these things or not, but I surely won't believe such a hyper-partisan set of sources to refute the way you present them.
Click to expand...

Why should I exclude a site if it has the facts on the matter ? If you can dispute what they say then you have proved they are unreliable. If you can't then all you're doing is refusing to listen out of spite.
 
You don't know mediamatters is rife with falsehoods? You don't recognize a completely biased source when you use one? You don't realize that one biased person's opinion doesn't make a convincing refutation?

Is it "spiteful" that I can come up with three times the links you can saying this story is true, and yet you'll believe only the very few politically partisan ones that say it isn't? Or is that simply your political prejudice at work?
 
How are these opinions ?


LIE:

After graduate school Kagan went on to become Dean of Harvard Law, where she removed Constitutional Law classes from the curriculum, and replaced those necessary and time honored classes with required studies of international law.
Click to expand...

Rebuttal:

That is a lie. Con law is, and always has been, a requirement for all 2Ls at Harvard Law School. One of the basic con law classes is even taught by conservative legal scholar Charles Fried, former solicitor general under Reagan.
Click to expand...


LIE:

And in what appears to be a game of using a mutual enemy’s resources to accomplish ones’ true objective, Kagan also accepted a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal – a noted Shariah Law proponent – to implement an “Islamic Studies” program.
Click to expand...

Rebuttal:

Talal did indeed give Harvard a $20 million grant for an Islamic Studies program, but this had nothing to do with the law school. There is one upper level course in the law school on Islamic law, but that’s hardly controversial. For those students who are going to work in any of the many fields where one would have to understand Islamic law — international law, corporate law, etc — it’s an important course to have. Only a moron or a liar would assume that this course advocates Sharia law.

And by the way, that same Saudi prince owns more than 10% of Fox News.
Click to expand...


And if you have these links that prove the claims in the email. By all means please post them.
 
Look, if you can't see this is an OPINION why would I ever bother with you?

There is one upper level course in the law school on Islamic law, but that’s hardly controversial. For those students who are going to work in any of the many fields where one would have to understand Islamic law — international law, corporate law, etc — it’s an important course to have. Only a moron or a liar would assume that this course advocates Sharia law.
 
Dino said:
Look, if you can't see this is an OPINION why would I ever bother with you?

There is one upper level course in the law school on Islamic law, but that’s hardly controversial. For those students who are going to work in any of the many fields where one would have to understand Islamic law — international law, corporate law, etc — it’s an important course to have. Only a moron or a liar would assume that this course advocates Sharia law.
Click to expand...

So you have proof this course advocates Sharia law ? If not then its a fact and not an opinion.
 
How does all this burden of proof fall on me? I didn't make any claim nor did I write any article.

You're hilarious when you're sputtering and desperate.
 
Dino said:
How does all this burden of proof fall on me? I didn't make any claim nor did I write any article.

You're hilarious when you're sputtering and desperate.
Click to expand...

Because you keep trying to impeach sources with opinions about them rather than substance. And now you are conceding that these is no substance behind your opinions. That includes the opinion that I am sputtering and desperate.
 
Coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion, your misconception is unsurprising.

It is a FACT that your only two sources for refuting this story are far LEFT. That is not my opinion, that is, in fact, a stone cold reality.

Once again, I'm faced with a poster with obvious glaring shortcomings in his/her post, and being personally attacked due to the realization of his/her ineffectiveness. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize you used two heavily biased sources, the attention being paid to me is your deflection from that glaring fact.
 
The chat was interesting until you made this charge about mediamatters. Please provide us with a compilation of falsehoods by the organization. I daresay that you can't:)

Dino said:
You don't know mediamatters is rife with falsehoods? You don't recognize a completely biased source when you use one? You don't realize that one biased person's opinion doesn't make a convincing refutation?

Is it "spiteful" that I can come up with three times the links you can saying this story is true, and yet you'll believe only the very few politically partisan ones that say it isn't? Or is that simply your political prejudice at work?
Click to expand...
 
It's because lib's actually care about America & working Americans. If you look at all the lies posted here from Right Wingers & Conservative White Wome, it's easy to tell they seem to hate America & the working class in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top